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

[thepixiesrock]

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

 

I think that's actually a pretty good argument as to why there isn't anything to worry about.

[Llyranor]

The Hippocratic Oath isn't even mandatory, boohoo.

[themadhatter114]

So, uh, like I said, what does the Hippocratic Oath have to do with abortion? Is pregnancy a sickness to be cured?

 

It's sad that you think the government should force people to act against their ethics even when acting according to their ethics wouldn't hurt anyone.

 

If there were ever a law that said that you weren't allowed to treat people differently based on race, religion, or gender, I think we'd truly be all the way toward the Orwellian paradise.

Edited September 3, 2008 by themadhatter114

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It's sad that you think the government should force people to act against their ethics...

 

No. It is sad that the government HAS to tell doctors to treat all people, not just those who share their so-called "morality."

[Nick_i_am]

All religions are simply large cults...

 

Doesn't matter if it's 'true', the word is still biggoted. Try defending a racial slur in the same way. Go on, try it.

 

oh, and by the way.

 

big

[Kelverin]

big

[Volourn]

So, how does this make things 'worse' for Bush? Does his now irrelevant 'popularity rating' go down 2% if this is made super public? Oh, I get it. It'll cost him himself the election this November. No 3rd term for Bush... oops... he cna't run anyways. L0L

[thepixiesrock]

It's sad that you think the government should force people to act against their ethics...

 

No. It is sad that the government HAS to tell doctors to treat all people, not just those who share their so-called "morality."

 

You have such little faith in doctors. It's like you think the only reason doctors treat people now is because the government tells them to do it. You've taken an entire profession, and boiled down all of the people in the profession into two dimmensional cartoon charactures who have extreme moral values that they will never go against, and that will completely affect everything they do. And that is simply ridiculous.

[taks]

No. It is sad that the government HAS to tell doctors to treat all people, not just those who share their so-called "morality."

first of all, you've erected a straw-man here. what bush is supporting isn't the freedom to discriminate who to treat (race, religion, orientation, etc.), but the freedom to discriminate what to treat. tsk, tsk.

 

abortion is an elective procedure (most of the time). whether or not a doctor chooses to perform elective abortions has nothing to do with the hippocratic oath, either. none of this applies to situations in which the mother's health is threatened. in such cases, abortion has always been legal, roe v. wade notwithstanding.

 

oh, btw hurlshot, it is hard to say that the SCOTUS ruling on roe v. wade was "reasonable." whether right or wrong to allow abortion, it's not a federal issue and SCOTUS should not have even taken the matter up. this was clearly a case of states that allowed abortion pushing their ideology onto states that did not. SCOTUS should have simply said "this is a state issue" and left it at that. here we have yet another intrusion by the federal government into state power. if you don't like your state's viewpoint on abortion, either change the state law, or move. that was the original intent of separate states to begin with.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

oh, btw hurlshot, it is hard to say that the SCOTUS ruling on roe v. wade was "reasonable." whether right or wrong to allow abortion, it's not a federal issue and SCOTUS should not have even taken the matter up. this was clearly a case of states that allowed abortion pushing their ideology onto states that did not. SCOTUS should have simply said "this is a state issue" and left it at that. here we have yet another intrusion by the federal government into state power. if you don't like your state's viewpoint on abortion, either change the state law, or move. that was the original intent of separate states to begin with.

 

taks

 

The issue here is that if one state decides to make performing abortions illegal (and there are a few that likely would) then you have a potentially dangerous situation. Young women who get pregnant don't usually have the financial means to simply move out of state to get an abortion. Whether you believe abortion is right or wrong, the fact is women will seek out a way to reverse the pregnancy. If it is illegal in their state, they are going to take risks in order to do so. They might go to an unlicensed doctor, they might try something more drastic that will endanger the unborn child.

 

Abortion isn't a new concept. It dates back to Ancient Times. Abortion isn't going to end just because abortion clinics are shut down. It will just become more dangerous for the pregnant woman. We have the medical knowledge to make it safe for those who make the choice, and so the Federal government has told every state that they must provide that safety regardless of personal beliefs.

[taks]

The issue here is that if one state decides to make performing abortions illegal (and there are a few that likely would) then you have a potentially dangerous situation. Young women who get pregnant don't usually have the financial means to simply move out of state to get an abortion. Whether you believe abortion is right or wrong, the fact is women will seek out a way to reverse the pregnancy. If it is illegal in their state, they are going to take risks in order to do so. They might go to an unlicensed doctor, they might try something more drastic that will endanger the unborn child.

i agree, but the broad stroke they took was beyond their mandate. recall, too, that just because something is dangerous does not mean the federal government has the responsibility (nor the right) to restrict or outlaw it. their purpose is not to save us from ourselves.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

The only time the Federal government doesn't get involved in something that is dangerous to us is if they are making money off of it.

[Meshugger]

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!

 

Again, is it in the best interest for the patient to have a doctor that can select on whether he/she wants to treat them, based on their own set of morality?

 

An example: A patient faces the risk of needing a blood-transfusion. However, the doctor is a Jehova's witness, and believes that blood-transfusion makes the person to loose a part of their soul, and refuses it. Is that right?

 

Practically, this shifts the responsibility to the patient to choose a doctor that treats everyone equally, without any moral prejudice. In a life and death, or remotely stressful situation, do you think this sounds reasonable?

[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!

 

Again, is it in the best interest for the patient to have a doctor that can select on whether he/she wants to treat them, based on their own set of morality?

 

An example: A patient faces the risk of needing a blood-transfusion. However, the doctor is a Jehova's witness, and believes that blood-transfusion makes the person to loose a part of their soul, and refuses it. Is that right?

 

Practically, this shifts the responsibility to the patient to choose a doctor that treats everyone equally, without any moral prejudice. In a life and death, or remotely stressful situation, do you think this sounds reasonable?

 

There's no reason that we should preclude people of various faiths from becoming doctors and helping in the way they can according to their faith. Obviously if their faith is contrary to medical science, they probably won't make it through medical school. I can understand telling doctors that they can't discriminate, but I can't understand telling doctors that they can't specialize in what they want.

[taks]

The only time the Federal government doesn't get involved in something that is dangerous to us is if they are making money off of it.

oh, i don't argue that they don't get involved, rather, they shouldn't. don't get me started.

 

An example: A patient faces the risk of needing a blood-transfusion. However, the doctor is a Jehova's witness, and believes that blood-transfusion makes the person to loose a part of their soul, and refuses it. Is that right?

 

Practically, this shifts the responsibility to the patient to choose a doctor that treats everyone equally, without any moral prejudice. In a life and death, or remotely stressful situation, do you think this sounds reasonable?

um, keep in mind, what bush and/or more appropriately, republicans/conservatives, are attempting to allow is a bit more limited in scope than this. the jehova example, while a bit interesting, is probably a stretch beyond reality what could ever happen (i would doubt that a JW is even allowed to practice medicine in a modern sense since it requires touching dead bodies, internal organs, etc., and lots of other people's blood comes into play, alive and dead).

 

barring the obvious situations such as with a JW practitioner, the scope in this case is clearly not designed to cover life threatening procedures. a blood transfusion is typically not considered elective, but abortion is more often than not.

 

taks