Yes, he can make things worse for himself...

[Deadly_Nightshade]

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

 

Yeah, and they ended up losing their job over the issue.

[Volourn]

"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?"

 

Well.. last I checked, racism used as an excuse for refusal of services is illegal in the US so if they were to admit they withheld medical services due to someone being black, they'd get into a lot of trouble legally, anyways.

 

Anyways, I'm prone to say that dcotors shouldn't refuse services to anyone if they choose to work in a public hospital (though, I guess, US hospitals aren't really public). But, I can understand doctors refusing to perform certain things (abortions which is alrerady a touch moral issue no matter which side you are one) is the biggest example of this.

 

The best bet to make everyone happy is for stuff like this to be made known before a situation arises so doctor should let their specific hospital know what they will or will not do when hired (so the hospital cna make the decision to hire them or not).

[I want teh kotor 3]

Republicans in the Senate are stupid, remember? Seriously, what the **** is next?

[thepixiesrock]

I think everyone needs to take a break, get out and away from your computers, and meet some doctors.

[Krookie]

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.

 

Find a different doctor. I don't see why that would be a huge problem. I'm not even responding to the Canadian part of your argument because that was just stupid.

[samm]

I think everyone needs to take a break, get out and away from your computers, and meet some doctors.

Not if we're black, muslims, or pregnant, and in the US, because that would be even more frustrating than the normal frustrations related to doctors

[thepixiesrock]

It's just funny that so many of you seem to think that the only thing that keeps doctors caring for the patients that they do is that they are forced to by law or something.

[Krookie]

Exactly. I really doubt every doctor wakes up in the morning and says "WHYYYYY DID I BECOME A DOCTOR, I DON'T WANT TO TREAT THE MINORITES!"

[thepixiesrock]

I think everyone needs to take a break, get out and away from your computers, and meet some doctors.

Not if we're black, muslims, or pregnant, and in the US, because that would be even more frustrating than the normal frustrations related to doctors

 

Hahahahahahahaha

 

"What's that, want a heart transplant? Sorry Hameed, should have thought about that BEFORE your people bombed the Trade Center Towers."

[samm]

Haha!

Well I know enough doctors who do it for the money and that's it. No genuine feeling of having to help those in need or something. So... Well, ok, this is something different, but I don't trust doctors *sneaks out of the thread*

Edited September 2, 2008 by samm

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm not even responding to the Canadian part of your argument because that was just stupid.

 

No more so than the doctor who denied two lesbians his services because of a cult's two-thousand-year-old book.

[Hurlshort]

I don't know what the furor is about, the Supreme Court will end up making it a moot point. That's why we have the lovely balance of power in the US.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I don't know what the furor is about, the Supreme Court will end up making it a moot point. That's why we have the lovely balance of power in the US.

 

You mean, the worst president in history's supreme Court, that's trying to overturn Roe v. Wade? I thought so.

[Krookie]

I'm not even responding to the Canadian part of your argument because that was just stupid.

 

No more so than the doctor who denied two lesbians his services because of a cult's two-thousand-year-old book.

 

So the lesbians can go to a different doctor? I don't see why he doesn't have the right to help who he wants.

[Nick_i_am]

cult

 

Yeah, this thread needs more bigotry.

[Llyranor]

They take away my money whenever I kill civilians.

[themadhatter114]

I don't think there is such a thing as a public hospital in the US. Maybe the VA hospitals.

 

I think it's silly that people are legislated into doing things that they find morally objectionable just because of the job that they chose. I think that any doctor should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for moral reasons. It should be up to the hospital whether or not he's worth having as an employee. If a hospital needs a certain number of doctors to perform abortions and can't afford to have an obstetrician who doesn't, then let the hospital make that decision.

 

When we have crap in this country like a photographer getting sued because she didn't want to photograph a gay wedding which conflicted with her religious beliefs, I think there comes a point where you need to allow service providers to choose their clientele. I am all for pressuring people with the voice of the public, but legally punishing people because you had to go to a different doctor or hire a different photographer is ridiculous.

 

I just can't wait for "hate speech" to be outlawed!

[Dark_Raven]

Its their duty to heal and treat those who are injured and sick. Being selective is going against the Hippocratic Oath.

[Hurlshort]

I don't know what the furor is about, the Supreme Court will end up making it a moot point. That's why we have the lovely balance of power in the US.

 

You mean, the worst president in history's supreme Court, that's trying to overturn Roe v. Wade? I thought so.

 

Roe vs. Wade hasn't been overturned though. People have been talking about how the Supreme Court is going to overturn it since I was in middle school (so when I was your age) and that was about 15 years ago. It's not going to happen, the case was decided very reasonably and it would take a major change in our understanding of the birth process to even bring to the court.

[themadhatter114]

Its their duty to heal and treat those who are injured and sick. Being selective is going against the Hippocratic Oath.

 

Does this assume that doctors must believe that pregnancy is a sickness that must be cured with abortion? Or could their morals compel them to apply the Hippocratic Oath to unborn children?

 

If there were a cosmetic procedure that a doctor found morally objectionable, should he be legally compelled to perform such a procedure?

 

Should a devout Catholic doctor be legally compelled to prescribe birth control pills rather than allowing him to recommend another doctor?

[themadhatter114]

The worst Supreme Court in history, that actually affirmed by a 1 vote margin the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. I'm amused that anyone who has even a modest amount of intelligence and honesty thinks that "original intent" is a bad standard by which to measure laws against the Constitution. I'd say it's also pretty disingenuous to say that John Roberts or Samuel Alito is unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

 

But if you read the Heller dissent written by John Paul Stevens (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter) or the separate dissent written by Stephen Breyer, it becomes clear who among the Supreme Court justices isn't actually qualified for his job.

[Gorth]

Its their duty to heal and treat those who are injured and sick. Being selective is going against the Hippocratic Oath.

 

Does this assume that doctors must believe that pregnancy is a sickness that must be cured with abortion? Or could their morals compel them to apply the Hippocratic Oath to unborn children?

 

If there were a cosmetic procedure that a doctor found morally objectionable, should he be legally compelled to perform such a procedure?

 

Should a devout Catholic doctor be legally compelled to prescribe birth control pills rather than allowing him to recommend another doctor?

Isn't that why countries have laws in the first place?

 

I could imagine a certain chaos as a result of all individuals doing as they pleased, disregarding the well being of other members of society at a whim if they don't agree with their faith, ethnicity, moral values whatever.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it said somewhere in some law that you are not allowed to treat people differently just because of race, creed and colour or whatever that line is.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

cult

 

Yeah, this thread needs more bigotry.

 

All religions are simply large cults...

 

Edit:

 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

cult –noun

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Its their duty to heal and treat those who are injured and sick. Being selective is going against the Hippocratic Oath.

 

Exactly, I agree.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Should a devout Catholic doctor be legally compelled to prescribe birth control pills rather than allowing him to recommend another doctor?

 

If there is another, that might be ok* - but if there is not another option then, no, he should be required to prescribe the medication.

 

 

*Although I would still disagree with that decision and fight against it.