...a new regulation that would allow doctors to deny medical services on the basis of their religious or moral beliefs, overriding current state laws...

TIME - Special Issue: The Republicans, Page 15

 

I'll write more about this, and try to post an on-line article or a better picture, tomorrow.

Jolly good. There was a furore in the UK some months back about Muslim student doctors refusing to learn about, or treat, alcohol-related illness. I imagine Mr. Bush would support this whole-heartedly? I, on the other hand, do not.

First do no harm?

Yes, finally. Doctors who cast moral judgement on what they want to treat on their patients. This is exactly what lies on the interests of the patient, right?

...a new regulation that would allow doctors to deny medical services on the basis of their religious or moral beliefs, overriding current state laws...

TIME - Special Issue: The Republicans, Page 15

 

I'll write more about this, and try to post an on-line article or a better picture, tomorrow.

 

summarized:

 

Why would a doctor deny medical services on anyone when there's money to be made for them? Or don't American doctors get paid on a fee for service basis any more?

What does this mean, that there are doctors who won't perform abortions. I don't see this as a problem unless they would actually refuse to save a woman's life and perform an emergency abortion. That would be criminal.

I do understand that a doctor should be free to exercise their right to choose, in the same way as I believe a woman ought to. However, a slight side-issue occurs to me: how do you plan emergency services with doctors picking and choosing what they do? What's to stop some white supremacist from refusing to treat black people because he believes they are "tarred with the sin of Cain" or whatever?

Doctors should have the right to choose unless it is an emergency where time matters.

 

My problem with this sort of thing would be information. If a doctor refuses work because of bigotry or something equally ridiculous then I'd like the opportunity to know that and avoid that particular doctor.

Nonsense, doctors are public servants, we don't allow other branches the right to pick and chose how they treat people.

If you have a private clinic and suck fat out of the wealthy you can do as you like, but a public hospital...

I have a hard time believing doctors are going to be denying people service, and if any do then they probably wouldn't be doctors that are working in places that require patients to be treated in a super timely fashion. So the people would be able to go somewhere else.

I do understand that a doctor should be free to exercise their right to choose, in the same way as I believe a woman ought to.

No. That would be like saying a policeman should be allowed to choose which crimes he wanted to pursue.

Police already do choose what crimes they want to pursue.

 

 

Take that society!

That's a question of resources, like when doctors triage patients, not of being philosophically disinclined to do your damn job.

No, I meant that in a way as to say all cops are corrupt in a satirical manner. I wasn't trying to make a point.

I know here in the states weve had several pharmacists refuse to fill orders for the abortion pill (iirc, RU-482).

Wasn't there somehting like that for birth control pills too?

I have an idea, why don't you elect McSame.

I have an idea, why don't you elect McSame.

Lets not and say we didn't.

Wasn't there somehting like that for birth control pills too?

 

 

I havent heard about that one.

Oh man, I can't believe it... This is really bad. "Nah, you're a musilm, no treatment for you", "Infusing someone else's blood? That's immoral! Forget it!", "You 'need' the pill only to kill potential life. Not with me..."

 

If capital G will ever have an accident and should be treated by a surgeon, this doctor should refuse. It's immoral and against any belief in humanity and all that's good in the world to let that source of disaster live. Also, it would be ironic, and that's always good

What does this mean, that there are doctors who won't perform abortions.

 

Or anything else they feel is against their "religious or moral beliefs" - the title of the piece is misleading in that respect.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think anyone should be forced to kill a baby if they don't want to.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think anyone should be forced to kill a baby if they don't want to.

 

Fine, that is why there are abortion clinics, but what about prescribing birth-control pills or treating alcohol-related diseases? Those are just two of the infinite number of things "doctors" could withhold for "moral" reasons. What about this, would you support someone who believed that Canadians were evil and deserved no care? If not, how is that any different?

Krookie: Yeah, the pill is killing a baby... Just like condoms.

 

Real abortions however that are not necessary for the survival of the mother are allowed only for a few weeks (about 2 months I think) after becoming pregnant and for certain reasons. At least that's the law in my country, as far as I know.

Edited September 2, 200817 yr by samm