That sounds fine to me, Tiassa.
Pro Choice or Pro Life, Obama is wrong!
- Thread starter jayleew
- Start date
That sounds fine to me, Tiassa.
I'm sorry, but I have a really hard time understanding why religion should affect proper health care. Church and state are supposed to remain seperate. Government law states that abortion is legal, so why should a doctor be able to turn away a patient because s/he feels her/his "morals" aka religion should take precedence. Doctors accept the repsonsibility of taking care of patients to the best of their ability when they choose to become doctors.
It's the same issue going on with Plan B. Why should a pharmacist be able to deny a customer Plan B based on their own moral belief and religous systems. Religion is not mandatory and distributing Plan B is not illegal, so others should not have to suffer because people can't get over their holier-then-thou crap.
Where do you draw the line?
So if a doctor believes that sex before marriage is wrong, should he be able to refuse to treat a patient he knows is sexually active and unwed? Of course not! It makes no sense.
What about a doctor who is a vegetarian or an animal rights activist or whose religion believes killing animals is wrong , should he be able to refuse to replace a patients heart-valve with a porcine valve because it goes against his morals or religion? No.
Discrimination against race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation is illegal. So why should a doctor be able to descriminate because of his religion. It makes no sense.
Why? Whether they think it's unethical or not is irrellevent, it's not illegal and therefore it's not a pharmacists place or job to judge. They are there to dispense medicine and offer advice about medicine to patients. They are not God. They don't get paid to play the morality police.
This also makes no sense. A pharmacy is not a vegetarian restaurant.
Plan B is not an 'abortion' pill. It simply stops a woman from ovulating (like all BC) so that any unwanted sperm will not be able to fertalize an egg. If you are already pregnant, Plan B WON'T WORK. And once again, you are comparing something that is illegal, like murder, to something which (whether you agree or not) is NOT illegal. Abortion is not illegal. Get over it.
Yes, women actually do have the right to be provided with birth control. They have the right to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and they have the right to quality health care. Are you saying, then, that men don't have the right to be provided with Viagra or a vesectomy? Seriously.
Comparing a Porsche to BC is just fucking laughable.
They did. It's called licensure, and it's a prerogative of the State.
If they don't want to be licensed pharmacists dispensing drugs according to the prescriptions written by doctors, and provided with what is essentially a monopoly or restricted competition by that State to do so, other careers beckon.
btw: the repeal of the Conscience Clause would not force any doctor to perform abortions. That kind of agitation and dishonest hyperbole is typical of the prolife crowd, and it squares poorly with their self-claimed ethical standards.
If a doctor has a moral issue with performing abortions, then they shouldn't work at an abortion clinic. To the best of my knowledge general practitioners don't perform abortions, if you want one they refer you to a clinic that does. That's like believing cosmetic surgery is immoral and then becoming a cosmetic surgeon and crying about how people actually expect you to alter their appearances. No one can force you to do anything you don't want to do, but as a doctor who doesn't want to perform something because of your own personal reasons, you need to refer your patient to someone else. You shouldn't just say "Abortions are immoral, leave" (especially if you practice at an abortion clinic).
So ethical conduct shouldn't be an issue in a profession? That's an interesting outlook.
Says who. You? What right do you have to dictate what services a pharmacist chooses to provide? Shouldn't it be a pharmacy owner's prerogative to decide which medications they stock?
Neither are you, so how dare you try to play God by using the law to coerce individuals into providing particular services, services which are contrary to what they believe is ethical conduct.
They *aren't* playing the morality police. They are simply refusing to participate in what they consider to be an unethical act of killing. If a vegetarian restaurant refuses to serve you meat, are they also playing the morality police?
No shit!
However, both choose not to provide a service based on moral scruples.God believers consider that to be an abortion. Just because you don't agree with their rationale doesn't mean you have the right to walk all over their right to choose.
What arrogance. They have no such right.
Correct. Men have no inherent right to Viagra or a vasectomy. Whether they are provided with that service is up to the service provider.
Why? They are both luxuries.
Anyone who believes Plan B equates to an abortion doesn't know what Plan B does and therefore cannot have a valid opinion on the matter. Right on Plan B's box it says that it cannot "terminate an existing pregnancy". It's just like if you have sex and there is no egg so the sperm can't fertilize anything, so you don't get pregnant. The only valid reason to be against Plan B, in that respect, would be if you believe in only procreative sexual relations. The abortion argument doesn't hold water. Birth control can terminate a pregnancy by making implantation nearly impossible, but Plan B can't do that.
So yes you can walk all over that rationale.
I never said ethics shouldn't be present in business, though they rarely are. The point is is that a persons individual morals (not the ethics of the corporation or business) should not dictate what services are supposed to be provided by their profession. If a pharmacy stocks Plan B, but the pharmacist feels that it hurts their sensitive moral standings and refuses to dispense it based on religious ideologies is just ridiculous. Once again, government and law dictate what is legal and what is not and to simply deny proper, legal healthcare because it violates your own personal moral code is irresponsible idiocy. What if a young woman was raped by her father and fears she is pregnant and is desperately seeking Plan B so that she doesn't have to give birth to a child born from incest. Is it ethical, then to deny her that right to protect herself?
I never said I had the right to dictate what pharmacists provide. The problem is that most pharmacies do stock medication like Plan B, but an individual pharmacist has the right to deny the dispensation of it solely based on their own religious beliefs which is wrong.
Give me a fucking break. One, I don't think I'm capable of playing God and how am I using the law to "coerce" anyone? Law is law. Abortion is not illegal. Plan B is not illegal. That is a fact. The issue is that religious beliefs should not take any part in allowing people to receive these things. Religion is a personal choice and no one has the right to force those beliefs on anyone. Plan B is not a religious belief. It is a service provided to women who want to prevent unplanned or unwanted pregnancies which is perfectly legal. For an individual pharmacist to say they have the right to choose when and who to dispense such medications like Plan B too based on religious morals is absurd.
When you walk into a vegetarian restauraunt, you can expect vegetarian food. Obviously. When you walk into a pharmacy that offers a vast array of medicines you expect to have a choice in what you want. Should pharmacists be allowed to deny people pain-killers because they think narcotic drugs are bad? Obviously, no. Again, most pharmacies stock Plan B, but for an individual to simply refuse to dispense it because they feel it's against God or whatever the hell is just shoddy healthcare and bigotry.
No shit!
Umm, no. :bugeye:
Well God believers are not above the law unfortunately for them. Anyone who thinks Plan B is equal to abortion is a fool who doesn't have the facts straight. Plan B will not abort a pregnancy. It will not work if you are already pregnant. Any decent pharmacist should know that, so if they are denying dispensation based on that idea then not only are they trying to arrogantly dictate what is right and wrong based on a personal religious belief that has no place in the medical feild and force it on others, but they are also misinformed...greatly.
You want to talk to me about arrogance? Please.
Everyone has the right to quality healthcare.And yet almost every single health insurance plan covers Viagra, while only 25-35% cover BC. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Pedophiles and rapists have more access to Viagra then most women have access to Plan B, BC, and abortion services.
Last edited:
im sorry but doctors are in the wrong line of work if they are willing to put there OWN issues above the pts wellbeing. Whats next, doctors who refuse to give narcaloxone because they are anti drugs? Doctors who refuse to treat homosexuals or aids pts? Doctors who refuse to treat prostitutes or criminals?
A doctor's (ANY health proffessional) job is to treat the pt to the best of there ability under the guidelines set down for there proffession and as the pt desires.
A doctor's (ANY health proffessional) job is to treat the pt to the best of there ability under the guidelines set down for there proffession and as the pt desires.
Which doctors are you refering to, Asguard?
ER doctors in a major hospital should, of course, treat whoever is brought into the ER without prejudice.
But a doctor who has his own private practice should be able to select his clients/patients on whatever criteria he chooses. If he/she chooses not to accept a gay man as a patient, then he has that right.
Asguard, your job is ER, so I'm sure that your post was based on that ER experience, but there are tons of different types of doctoring other than ER. A cosmetic surgeon (plastic surgery) is a doctor. A podiatrist is a doctor. Surely you're not suggesting that either of them have no choices in what patients they treat?
Baron Max
I draw the line with a patient's health. Being pregnant is not inherently a life-threatening medical condition. If anything, it is cosmetic like TMJ. If a doctor refused me surgery for my TMJ because of his religion, i'd just go somewhere else.
That is where you are so wrong on a number of levels. There are situations in which pregnancy can be life threatening to the mother...all well documented. Two, I have seen women take tremendous risks to terminate a pregnancy. I think we as a society need to be more understanding of women and womens issues. I dont want women taking great risks with their health. This is a serious issue and should be addressed with a serious answer. And that answer should ultimately be left to the woman...with all the help and support we can give them.
I've given this all more thought and consideration. I can't see either side winning the pro life/pro choice debate. The problem with this issue, is we have not been able to empirically say where life begins. The pro choice folks' morals are centered around the woman's right to her body, and that the buildup of cells in the womb are not yet defined as a life. If we cannot empircally agree where life begins, then this issue is pointless to debate because there is no moral line there. Both sides error on the side of their interpretation of where life begins.
That is the pro life/pro choice debate. This is why I want to separate the issue with the one I am talking about: The conscience clause.
This one is about the morality of a provider's right to refuse service, under employment, in the future without disciplinary or discriminatory actions from their employer. On one hand, we have the rights of the patient. On the other, we have the rights of the provider. Which should be weighed more heavily here? Which direction is the moral compass pointing to?
Damnit, this is the same moral issue of hanging a cross in the State Capitol. So, I see why people oppose this clause. The reason I side with the provider here is that there is probably the same amount of providers that will perform the procedure as there are those that won't.
If all or most doctors would not perform this service, then I would sing a different tune.
We cannot deny a person's right to medical service, but we must also protect everyone's right to employment, regardless of religious belief.
Surely we must all agree that forcing a provider to do something outside their religious belief, under threat of disciplinary or discriminatory actions, is wrong. The same is true for non-religious beliefs. We cannot force non-religious folks to perform religious actions under threat of disciplinary or discriminatory actions. Is this not ethical?
That is the pro life/pro choice debate. This is why I want to separate the issue with the one I am talking about: The conscience clause.
This one is about the morality of a provider's right to refuse service, under employment, in the future without disciplinary or discriminatory actions from their employer. On one hand, we have the rights of the patient. On the other, we have the rights of the provider. Which should be weighed more heavily here? Which direction is the moral compass pointing to?
Damnit, this is the same moral issue of hanging a cross in the State Capitol. So, I see why people oppose this clause. The reason I side with the provider here is that there is probably the same amount of providers that will perform the procedure as there are those that won't.
If all or most doctors would not perform this service, then I would sing a different tune.
We cannot deny a person's right to medical service, but we must also protect everyone's right to employment, regardless of religious belief.
Surely we must all agree that forcing a provider to do something outside their religious belief, under threat of disciplinary or discriminatory actions, is wrong. The same is true for non-religious beliefs. We cannot force non-religious folks to perform religious actions under threat of disciplinary or discriminatory actions. Is this not ethical?
I agree, but we can't stomp over provider's rights to accomplish this.
The ends don't justify the means.
Public facilities must be able to provide any medical service, but also not discriminate against its employees. It will be up to the facility to make sure they have doctors on staff that can perform the abortion, but not make it a job requirement. This is not that type of medical condition. The government can add to the clause and force the facilities to enforce both conditions, under threat of penalty.
Sure, it would be easier just to do away with the clause, but I don't think that that is the right course of action to deal with this issue!
We are going the right way, but obviously, there is more legislation that needs to happen on top of Bush's clause. Outright repealing the clause is a step backward.
Off topic a bit, but why the hell are some of you arguing that pregnancy is such a bad medical condition. I hear arguments about the "patient's well being" "life threatenting" and all this crap!!!
Jeeze people, any medical condition can potentially be life-threatening. It really depends on the situation. But, we can't overgeneralize and say all pregnancies are life-threatening. We can't even truly say that most pregancies are life-threatening. It's false.
Aside from that:
Do you honestly think that a doctor, who is a theist, will choose the life of the baby over the mother?? I'm positive that most theists would choose to try to save both, but with the mother's help, decide on which to really save, in difficult situations where it's either the mother or the baby.
And if it's like in it's early stages with little or no hope of surving, do you really think a doctor is going to say, "No, dammit, that thing is alive I won't kill it, you just sit there and die quietly, heathen."
Jeeze people, any medical condition can potentially be life-threatening. It really depends on the situation. But, we can't overgeneralize and say all pregnancies are life-threatening. We can't even truly say that most pregancies are life-threatening. It's false.
Aside from that:
Do you honestly think that a doctor, who is a theist, will choose the life of the baby over the mother?? I'm positive that most theists would choose to try to save both, but with the mother's help, decide on which to really save, in difficult situations where it's either the mother or the baby.
And if it's like in it's early stages with little or no hope of surving, do you really think a doctor is going to say, "No, dammit, that thing is alive I won't kill it, you just sit there and die quietly, heathen."
Being as this is a horrible analogy, I will try to adjust it so you can comprehend the issue.
If I walk into a restaurant and order something off the menu (keep in mind these individuals mostly work for outfits that DO have birth control in stock) and the cook in the back refuses to prepare the steak I order (because he is a vegan and is morally against meat being served to people) you bet I would pitch a bitch.
another horrible analogy.
Using a gun to kill a human being IS illegal (for the most part).
This is assuming every egg would be fertilized, AND attach on its own. Lots of assumptions going on to justify the practicing of my/your/their/ moral idealisms on another free-to-choose-their-own-morality and how its inflicted on SELF human with their right to be free from your/my/their morality.
With the choice these "professionals" make when they decide to become licensed to dispense drugs / practice medicine comes the responsibility to customer/patient first. Regardless of what choice they would make for themselves on a personal level.
If I go into a porsche dealership and am denied the LEGAL purchace of the car, you bet I am gonna raise hell. If the dealership is offering the car for sale, no salemans has the right to deny me that choice, even if he TRUELY believes Women should not be allowed to drive. I dont care what his moral/religious idealism is, he has no right to inflict that upon me. He chose to become a car salesman, and he best not discriminate against me because he has some moral obligation to self or some god figure.
Should one's conscience at least acknowledge reality?
And some people consider all birth control unethical. For instance, Sylvia Olona, whose actions inspired the January discussion I've mentioned a couple times. Ms. Olona routinely performs unauthorized procedures on patients—removing their IUDs—because she feels an IUD to be an abortion. Her justification is the conscience clause; she pretends to "accidentally" remove the patient's IUD, then refuses to to correct the "mistake", instead lecturing the patient on abortion.
Now here's the thing: IUDs don't cause abortions; they prevent them. But it's still an abortion to Sylvia Olona. And so she's developed this reputation for having "accidents" whenever she's around a patient with an IUD.
Still, should one's conscience in these cases a least acknowledge reality?
And some years down the road when "pharmacists of conscience" are having difficulty in the job market? Perhaps we'll have a laugh together.
Copernicus66 said:
And some people consider all birth control unethical. For instance, Sylvia Olona, whose actions inspired the January discussion I've mentioned a couple times. Ms. Olona routinely performs unauthorized procedures on patients—removing their IUDs—because she feels an IUD to be an abortion. Her justification is the conscience clause; she pretends to "accidentally" remove the patient's IUD, then refuses to to correct the "mistake", instead lecturing the patient on abortion.
Now here's the thing: IUDs don't cause abortions; they prevent them. But it's still an abortion to Sylvia Olona. And so she's developed this reputation for having "accidents" whenever she's around a patient with an IUD.
Still, should one's conscience in these cases a least acknowledge reality?
And some years down the road when "pharmacists of conscience" are having difficulty in the job market? Perhaps we'll have a laugh together.
Odd analogy, but... Surely you're not saying or implying that a doctor in private practice is required to take any and all new patients when they walk into his private offices???? ...that he can't refuse a client or patient?
And I think a pharmacist in private practice, could refuse to sell certain drugs if he didn't feel it was ethical to dispense them. I think this came up in Texas a few years ago. But the court rule in favor of the client ONLY because that pharmacy was the only one within many, many miles. Had there been another pharmacy in the area, his beliefs would have been respected ...I believe is how the court said it in their ruling.
I think too many people here are talking ONLY of emergency care ...and that doesn't care over into private practices.
And pharmacists are not much different to owners of a hardware store ...neither is required to stock every single thing on the market in their field of endeavor.
Baron Max
The Porche dealership was not my analogy.
We are not talking about refusing a client or patient. We are talking about refusal to deliver a LEGAL service which these various persons are trained and qualified to deliver. What about a pediatrician who decides the polio vaccine is a moral issue for him/herself and refuses to immunize children?
I did a quick search on this and found nothing. So even if you are correct in your memory of the events, I am curious as to whether this "morally superior" pharmacist shut his doors or if his morals are as subjective as everyone else's.
.
The issue isnt whether the product is in stock. Thats moot. The issue is whether an individual has the right to refuse to provide a service they are qualified, licensed to do, and have the ability to provide. So the assumption is the product is in stock or the tools/equipment are onsite to provide the service. Its not just abortions/birth control. Its a host of legal options a patient/client/customer has a legal right to that is being denied by (most often) an employee of a larger complex.
barron, GP's in australia are private practices, even the ones set up by state and local gov becsuse that way medicare is billed. the have been quite a few cases where the courts gave ruled against doctors who refused to pprovide treatment out of hours when there was a pt in asking for help. as far as emerg is concerened what IS an emergency? mental health? yes that is an emerg case. Even hyperventalation can be an emergency. so you are a doc or a pharmist and you refuse RU486 because of your MORALs and the pt trys a coat hanger and bleeds out or commits suicide. guess who is going to get destroyed by the corronor and end up infront of the medical board or equivalent and probably the criminsl and civil courts as well.
if you dont want to cook dont be a chef, if you cant put your own judgements aside dont work in health. that doesnt just go for doctors in NSW but ANY health proffesional
if you dont want to cook dont be a chef, if you cant put your own judgements aside dont work in health. that doesnt just go for doctors in NSW but ANY health proffesional