CA Supreme Court-Doctors Cannot Invoke Religious Beliefs To Deny Treatment

[martha]

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.

When your daughter is denied medical treatment because the doctor finds it objectionable, you can tell her how good you feel about it.

People who think this way forget that shit like this will eventually affect them.

 

[nathan1977]

When your daughter is denied medical treatment because the doctor finds it objectionable, you can tell her how good you feel about it.

Your moral high ground sinks when you're talking about murdering defenseless babies in the womb, Martha.

 

[financeguy]

People who think this way forget that shit like this will eventually affect them.

People who fervently support abortion on demand forget to put themselves in the baby's position.

 

[financeguy]

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.

How do you account for the fact that the % of women who are of the view that abortion should not be available is HIGHER than the % of men?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_gender.2C_party.2C_and_region


Have you ever considered that these statistics blow a massive hole in your tired, worn, cliched, and insulting argument that those who support limits on abortion only do so because they want to oppress women?

 

[Irvine511]

Have you ever considered that these statistics blow a massive hole in your tired, worn, cliched, and insulting argument that those who support limits on abortion only do so because they want to oppress women?

i, for one, am shocked that the same people who want to retain the ability to deny certain forms of contraception also demand the ability to deny access to abortion on demand.

after all, i've only ever believed that the pro-life movement was a totally sincere effort to reduce the incidence of abortions by any means necessary because of the totally sincere and heartfelt convictions about the metaphysical status of the fetus.

situations like this really do support the sneaking suspicion that the "pro-life" movement is little more than a whole set of reactionary attitudes about women's sexuality and gender roles.

you'd think that those so aghast at abortion and who sob over the little babies -- who, btw, get "murdered" naturally in the womb by, well, i guess god himself -- would be tripping all over themselves to make birth control federally funded.

 

[financeguy]

I agree that contraception should be federally funded.

 

[nathan1977]

i, for one, am shocked that the same people who want to retain the ability to deny certain forms of contraception also demand the ability to deny access to abortion on demand.

In the situation we're discussing, the doctors were happy to offer referrals to other doctors. So this is a bit of a non sequitor.

situations like this...

Like what? Abortions? Or IVF for lesbians?

really do support the sneaking suspicion that the "pro-life" movement is little more than a whole set of reactionary attitudes about women's sexuality and gender roles.

How on earth would you get that from this thread?

you'd think that those so aghast at abortion and who sob over the little babies -- who, btw, get "murdered" naturally in the womb by, well, i guess god himself...

As someone who is currently mourning the loss of a close friend's child in the womb due to (among other reasons) her diabetes, I find this patently offensive -- as if God is the only force in the universe. If you'd like to have a discussion about the role of God, natural law, and good and evil in the universe, by all means. This is not the time or the place, and adding such a charge to sexism, shows your own naivete and inability to understand any perspective but your own.

 

[financeguy]

This is not the time or the place, and adding such a charge to sexism, shows your own naivete and inability to understand any perspective but your own.

I think there is quite a lot of 'failing to understand any perspective but your own' from the left wing side on FYM, but in fairness, I would not apply that to Irvine.

 

[nathan1977]

You're right. Irvine's (perceived or intended) theological slap in the face comes on a particularly bad day. Sorry Irvine.

 

[Irvine511]

nathan, i was posting in response to FG, who turned this thread into yet another abortion thread, and thus, that's where my comments came from.

In the situation we're discussing, the doctors were happy to offer referrals to other doctors. So this is a bit of a non sequitor.

perhaps, but this situation gets to what i keep suspecting the pro-life movement is really about -- female sexuality. if the pro-life movement were actually concerned about the metaphysical status of the fetus, then they'd be less hostile to birth control than they presently are, as exemplified by the doctors in question in this situation (which has now been expanded beyond a few bigots who want to deny IVF to lesbians).

As someone who is currently mourning the loss of a close friend's child in the womb due to (among other reasons) her diabetes, I find this patently offensive -- as if God is the only force in the universe. If you'd like to have a discussion about the role of God, natural law, and good and evil in the universe, by all means. This is not the time or the place, and adding such a charge to sexism, shows your own naivete and inability to understand any perspective but your own.

good. i'm glad you find this offensive. i'm wondering why so many little babies are murdered when they frequently do not attach to the uterine wall and are subsequently flushed down the toilet. this happens millions of times a year -- and it's a fully natural process. this is why objections to "Plan B" is utterly ludicrous, because what Plan B does is prevent the zygote from implanting in the womb by making the woman's body think that hse is already pregnant.

because i have too much respect for you, i'll set aside the last sentence since it seems this struck an emotional chord. i am sorry for your friend's loss, but i am not sorry, not at all, at teasing out the faults of viewing every conception as a little baby and by simplifying an exceedingly complex issue to be about "murder."

 

[martha]

Your moral high ground sinks when you're talking about murdering defenseless babies in the womb, Martha.

I stand by my statement. When your daughter is seeking medical care, for whatever reason, and it's denied because the doctor finds it "objectionable", then you can tell how you feel about it.

 

[Irvine511]

You're right. Irvine's (perceived or intended) theological slap in the face comes on a particularly bad day. Sorry Irvine.

it's fine -- i just edited my response.

 

[martha]

People who fervently support abortion on demand forget to put themselves in the baby's position.

You're right. I put myself in the position of the living, breathing woman who is pregnant and will be forced to carry the fetus to full term because someone sitting on a couch in another state (or country in your case) has decided he knows better than she what should happen to the collection of cells inside the living, breathing woman. And that somehow the "rights" of that collection of cells is more important that the rights of a living woman.

 

[martha]

As someone who is currently mourning the loss of a close friend's child

Believe it or not, I am also sorry for your loss and pain about this.

 

[financeguy]

You're right. I put myself in the position of the living, breathing woman who is pregnant and will be forced to carry the fetus to full term because someone sitting on a couch in another state (or country in your case) has decided he knows better than she what should happen to the collection of cells inside the living, breathing woman. And that somehow the "rights" of that collection of cells is more important that the rights of a living woman.

You're still doing it. The fact that you specifically use the pronoun 'he' in your post ("because someone sitting on a couch in another state (or country in your case) has decided he knows better than she what should happen to the collection of cells inside the living, breathing woman") - shows that you assume that ANY opposition to abortion MUST be created by a bunch of men sitting around dreaming up ways to oppress women. You seem to have completely ignored the link to the survey I posted above.

I accept that you are intellectually honest - in the sense that you honestly believe what you post - but I can't for the life of me see how you can blissfully filter out any opposing evidence or any evidence which hints that other points of view are valid.

Just answer one question, if you wish - why do 24% of US women surveyed support a ban on abortion, and why do a further 40% support abortion rights but with greater restrictions than currently exist? Why is it that 2/3's of US women support my point of view, and do not support yours?

 

[financeguy]

good. i'm glad you find this offensive. i'm wondering why so many little babies are murdered when they frequently do not attach to the uterine wall and are subsequently flushed down the toilet. this happens millions of times a year -- and it's a fully natural process. this is why objections to "Plan B" is utterly ludicrous, because what Plan B does is prevent the zygote from implanting in the womb by making the woman's body think that hse is already pregnant.

This is an extremely weak argument, I'm afraid.

Thousands of Bangladeshi die in floods, so let's invade Bangladesh, kill half its inhabitants and convert the rest to Christianity.

I mean, come on.

 

[martha]

You're still doing it. The fact that you specifically use the pronoun 'he
Just answer one question, if you wish - why do 24% of US women surveyed support a ban on abortion, and why do a further 40% support abortion rights but with greater restrictions than currently exist? Why is it that 2/3's of US women support my point of view, and do not support yours?

My honest answer to your question:

I don't know and I don't care. (And I know that anyone can go and alter anything in Wikipedia, too.)


I think I use the male pronoun because most of the anti-choice legislation seems to come from men. And most of the screaming about "murdered babies" here in FYM comes from men.

 

[financeguy]

because i have too much respect for you, i'll set aside the last sentence since it seems this struck an emotional chord. i am sorry for your friend's loss, but i am not sorry, not at all, at teasing out the faults of viewing every conception as a little baby and by simplifying an exceedingly complex issue to be about "murder."

Expressions such as 'murder' and 'baby-killing' probably shouldn't be used with regard to discussing abortion, because they tend not to lead to constructive debate, and I distinctly recall I said to a conservative-leaning FYM'r round about the time I first started posting here that he probably would be better off avoiding those kinds of phrases in relation to abortion, as it wasn't winning him any converts.

But the reality is, Irvine, that at this point I don't really feel any compunction about using those kinds of phrases to describe abortion because, frankly, there's one or two on your side that never give any ground, that consistently neglect in any way to take on board concerns and arguments raised by the anti-abortion side, and, worse yet, that assign motives to my side of the debate on a completely false basis. And I will not deny or water down my point of view to suit the liberal majority on here on this issue. I simply won't.

And contrary to the impression you seem to have, the liberal side restarts the abortion debate on FYM AT LEAST as often as the conservative side.

 

[financeguy]

I think I use the male pronoun because most of the anti-choice legislation seems to come from men. And most of the screaming about "murdered babies" here in FYM comes from men.

Wow. Really scientific.

Hold on, I thought your side were the great supporters of rationality and progress and science?

 

[martha]

Wow. Really scientific.

Hold on, I thought your side were the great supporters of rationality and progress and science?

Your generalizations are way more entertaining than mine. When did I ever claim to be scientific?

And, by the way, you're the one using Wikipedia statistics.

 

[martha]

And contrary to the impression you seem to have, the liberal side restarts the abortion debate on FYM AT LEAST as often as the conservative side.

Not this time.

 

[martha]

And I will not deny or water down my point of view to suit the liberal majority on here on this issue. I simply won't.

And you can't bully me into watering down mine.

 

[Irvine511]

This is an extremely weak argument, I'm afraid.

Thousands of Bangladeshi die in floods, so let's invade Bangladesh, kill half its inhabitants and convert the rest to Christianity.

I mean, come on.

the point is that these cells aren't children and thusly can't be murdered.

or, if they are children, then they are murdered in the millions every year by women across the globe.

 

[martha]

not to go back on topic or anything

This was in the LA Times this morning. The bold text is my highlight.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-sloan23-2008aug23,0,918624.story

When religion and healthcare collide
Healthcare providers should not be allowed to let faith interfere with delivering care.
By Richard P. Sloan
August 23, 2008
Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court ruled against two physicians who allegedly denied -- based on their religious opposition -- a legal medical treatment to a patient based on her sexual orientation. The decision was issued in a lawsuit filed by a lesbian against doctors in a Vista, Calif., medical group who refused to artificially inseminate her.

This is a welcome, if unusual, turnabout in a disturbing trend that has characterized American medicine over the last three or so decades: an increasing willingness to allow the actions of individuals to disadvantage, and even endanger, others if those actions derive from religious faith.



Almost every state in the nation has legislation permitting healthcare professionals -- from physicians to nurses to pharmacists -- to deny patients legal medical treatments that they may find religiously objectionable. At the federal level, the Bush administration announced plans Thursday to implement a regulation that would deny federal funds to hospitals, health plans and other entities that do not permit their employees to opt out of participating in legal medical procedures -- including those associated with reproduction and terminal sedation -- that they oppose out of religious conviction.



This summer, a "pharmacy for life" was set to open in the suburbs of Washington. Like other similar pharmacies, it won't stock condoms, contraceptives or the so-called morning-after contraceptive Plan B, despite the fact that pharmacies are licensed by state governments giving them the exclusive right to dispense medications. In exchange for these monopoly rights, pharmacists have an ethical obligation to act in the interests of patients.

Recent studies have shown that 14% of U.S. doctors, when confronted by possibly objectionable but legal medical treatments, not only would refuse to deliver such care but also would refuse to inform their patients about it or refer them to physicians who would deliver the care. That translates to about 40 million people who would receive substandard care from these physicians, who believe that their religious convictions are more important than the well-being of their patients.



The tradition of religious freedom in the United States is one of the founding ideals of this country. But as our framers envisioned it, religious freedom referred to a right to practice one's own religion free of interference from others. It did not refer to religiously based interference with the rights of others, who may have their own and different religious traditions. Even in the relatively religiously homogeneous era of the framers, such interference was not acceptable. It is even less so in 21st century America. With religious heterogeneity growing, the devotional demands of one group may be increasingly at odds with those of others.



Yet too often, our deference to religion in contemporary American society has allowed us to subordinate all other values. It has allowed us to routinely accept religiously motivated behaviors that we otherwise would have no reluctance to sanction and that, indeed, would be impermissible with any other justification.

So it's time to say "enough." In the United States, we all are free to practice our religion as we see fit, as long as we do not interfere with the well-being of others by imposing our religious views on them. If physicians or other healthcare providers who have religious objections to legal medical treatments will not at a minimum inform their patients about those treatments and refer them to others who will deliver them, they should act in a way that is consistent with their convictions and the well-being of their patients and find other professions.

Freedom of religion is a cherished value in American society. So is the right to be free of religious domination by others.

Richard P. Sloan is a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center.

 

[BonosSaint]

"Recent studies have shown that 14% of U.S. doctors, when confronted by possibly objectionable but legal medical treatments, not only would refuse to deliver such care but also would refuse to inform their patients about it or refer them to physicians who would deliver the care. That translates to about 40 million people who would receive substandard care from these physicians, who believe that their religious convictions are more important than the well-being of their patients. "


If those figures are accurate and I will assume they are for now, that part of it is the most frightening--not that an individual physician will not perform a specific procedure--but that they would refuse to inform or refer.

 

[Se7en]

"Recent studies have shown that 14% of U.S. doctors, when confronted by possibly objectionable but legal medical treatments, not only would refuse to deliver such care but also would refuse to inform their patients about it or refer them to physicians who would deliver the care. That translates to about 40 million people who would receive substandard care from these physicians, who believe that their religious convictions are more important than the well-being of their patients. "


If those figures are accurate and I will assume they are for now, that part of it is the most frightening--not that an individual physician will not perform a specific procedure--but that they would refuse to inform or refer.

that 14% should be stripped of their licenses and barred from any future practice. not informing or referring is simply unacceptable.

 

[BVS]

This is an extremely weak argument, I'm afraid.

It's an excellent argument(that seemed to go over your head) for those that think life starts at conception, because as Irvine pointed out that's not the case. And it's usually an argument that gets ignored or swept under the rug such as you did...

 

[financeguy]

Your generalizations are way more entertaining than mine. When did I ever claim to be scientific?

And, by the way, you're the one using Wikipedia statistics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think that popular support should impact abortion rights, I think that it becomes a matter of an individuals control over their own body. Appealing to what most people believe is right doesn't say anything about the ethics of abortion or how the law should be constructed.

 

[martha]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said abortion should either be generally available, or available but with stricter limits than now. Just 22 percent said abortion should not be permitted.

The latest findings show the number of Americans who believe that abortion should be generally available is up slightly from two years ago

I like these stats.