CA Supreme Court-Doctors Cannot Invoke Religious Beliefs To Deny Treatment - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-20-2008, 11:43 PM   #76
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Can you quote anything I've ever posted that directly indicates I'm a Hillary supporter?

(Hint: Only one post ever. I dare you to find it.)

And yeah, my answer was shitty and smart-ass. I was tired and a little sick of your shrill bullshit.
"Shrill Bullshit"

Are you sure now?
__________________

__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 11:46 PM   #77
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Geez. I thought you bitter assertive Hillary supporters wouldn't resurface on a thread that has nothing at all to do with politics. You never cease to amaze...or disgust me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
"Shrill Bullshit"

Are you sure now?

Yeah. Pretty much.
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
Old 08-20-2008, 11:50 PM   #78
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 09:37 AM
" She had lost the art of conversation but not, unfortunatley, the power of speech."

- George Bernard Shaw
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 11:51 PM   #79
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 07:37 AM
I'm well-versed in the art of conversation, and the power of speech. I'm just a little particular about who gets what.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 08-21-2008, 12:27 AM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????
Um...Harry, you are jumping to conclusions this ruling does not make. The woman in this case is asking the doctors to do the procedures they already do. They refused because they don't want to do those procedures on people like her. The law in California, as it stands now, does not permit businesses (which that clinic is) to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. No one is telling these doctors they have to perform procedures they are opposed to; however, according to the law, if they offer the service they cannot deny service to someone strictly because of that person's sexual orientation.

Your scenario has someone asking doctors to do a procedure they don't do at all. That is not the same. It would only be the same if the doctors in your scenario did perform abortions, but refused to perform them on lesbians.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 08-21-2008, 09:12 AM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:37 AM
I pretty much agree with the ruling.

Would it be OK for a doctor to withhold treatment and surgery from a fetus with say, a congenital heart defect, simply because it's mother is an artificially inseminated lesbian? Or refuse to deliver it or provide regular childhood care after it's birth? Of coarse not. Medical service is medical service. The public is the public. If you don't like that or can't put your personal convictions aside when required, then maybe a career in the health professions isn't for you.

That being said, these types of rulings must respect religious based organizations -- including those running or funding hospital and other healthcare related functions -- right to free-exercise under the First Amendment. As well as the personal beliefs of individuals.

But we simply can't have doctors, pharmacists, mailmen, teachers, firefighters, taxi drivers or any other publicly entrusted servant deciding independently and with discrimination who is and isn't entitled to a reasonable expectation of service or care.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 08-21-2008, 10:34 AM   #82
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Medical service is medical service. The public is the public. If you don't like that or can't put your personal convictions aside when required, then maybe a career in the health professions isn't for you.
Mark this date... we agree.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-21-2008, 07:05 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Mark this date... we agree.
Date noted. However, don't forget, I got along famously with bizarro BVS.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 08-21-2008, 07:52 PM   #84
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I got along famously with bizarro BVS.
I almost forgot about him
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 10:07 AM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 10:37 AM
I've already posted about this but it sort of fits here too

HHS: Doctors can refuse abortions
Proposed rule cites religious, moral objections

By Rob Stein, Washington Post | August 22, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced plans yesterday to implement a controversial regulation designed to protect doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers who object to abortion from being forced to deliver services that violate their personal beliefs.

The rule empowers federal health officials to pull funding from more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, doctors' offices, and other entities if they do not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable on personal, moral, or religious grounds.

"People should not be forced to say or do things they believe are morally wrong," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Healthcare workers should not be forced to provide services that violate their violates their own conscience."

The proposed regulation, which could go into effect after a 30-day comment period, was welcomed by conservative groups, abortion opponents, and others as necessary to safeguard workers from being fired or penalized.

Women's health advocates, family planning advocates, abortion-rights activists, and others, however, condemned the regulation, saying it could create sweeping obstacles to a variety of health services, including abortion, family planning, end-of-life care, and possibly a wide range of scientific research.

"It's breathtaking," said Robyn Shapiro, a bioethicist at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "The impact could be enormous."

The regulation drops the most controversial language in a draft version that would have explicitly defined an abortion for the first time in a federal law or regulation as anything that interfered with a fertilized egg after conception. But both supporters and critics said the regulation remained broad enough to protect pharmacists, doctors, nurses, and others from providing birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraception, and other forms of contraception, and explicitly allows workers to withhold information and refuse to refer patients elsewhere.

"The Bush administration's proposed regulation poses a serious threat to women's healthcare by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services," said Cecile Richards of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Women's ability to manage their own healthcare is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology."


Leavitt said he requested the new regulation after becoming alarmed by reports that healthcare workers were being pressured to perform duties they found repugnant. He cited moves by two professional organizations for obstetricians and gynecologists that he said might require doctors who object to abortions to refer patients to physicians who would.

A draft of the regulation that leaked in July triggered a flood of criticism from women's health activists, family planning advocates, members of Congress, and others. Concern focused on fears the definition of abortion could be interpreted to include many forms of widely used contraception.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 12:46 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post

"The Bush administration's proposed regulation poses a serious threat to women's healthcare by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services," said Cecile Richards of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Women's ability to manage their own healthcare is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology."[/B]
Well, a child's ability to actually make into the world is being threatened by politics and ideology too, so I'd say in the end the two balance each other out.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 02:02 PM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Can healthcare workers refuse to perform vasectomies? Refuse to provide Viagra to unmarried men?

Strangely enough that's not even mentioned. Oh yeah, men can't get pregnant so no need for the govt to get involved.

Contraception is not abortion.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 03:55 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post

Contraception is not abortion.
You should read the article again.

Quote:
...abortion-rights activists, and others, however, condemned the regulation, saying it could create sweeping obstacles to a variety of health services, including abortion...
I also think it's a good thing that doctors aren't being forced to violate the Hippocratic Oath.

Quote:
...end-of-life care...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 04:22 PM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post

Leavitt said he requested the new regulation after becoming alarmed by reports that healthcare workers were being pressured to perform duties they found repugnant. He cited moves by two professional organizations for obstetricians and gynecologists that he said might require doctors who object to abortions to refer patients to physicians who would.

A draft of the regulation that leaked in July triggered a flood of criticism from women's health activists, family planning advocates, members of Congress, and others. Concern focused on fears the definition of abortion could be interpreted to include many forms of widely used contraception.

it is repugnant that a doctor might have to refer a patient ?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 04:26 PM   #90
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post

HHS: Doctors can refuse abortions
Proposed rule cites religious, moral objections

By Rob Stein, Washington Post | August 22, 2008

WASHINGTON -
"It's breathtaking," said Robyn Shapiro, a bioethicist at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "The impact could be enormous."

But both supporters and critics said the regulation remained broad enough to protect pharmacists, doctors, nurses, and others from providing birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraception, and other forms of contraception, and explicitly allows workers to withhold information and refuse to refer patients elsewhere.
Jesus. If this affected men, there would be outrage and much fist-banging on desks.

I wonder if those women who think that voting for McCain "sends a message" really understand the message that they'll be sending.
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com