Conscientious Objector Policy Act - Page 2 - 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 04-25-2004, 02:12 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
No this law is outrageous. You'll have people denying birth control, denying to help anyone they feel unfit, etc. It's discusting.

You go into to the medical field to help people, not to judge or play God. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't work for a place that performs them.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
What comes next Policemen get to decide which cases they work on according to their religious beliefs, Firemen get to discriminate which ones they save from a burning building, or maybe we should just start allowing Judges to decide hearings due to his own religious beliefs and throw out the law.
An excellent point. .

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-25-2004, 10:04 AM   #17
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:38 PM
I think it's opening up a dangerous precedent to allow every and any health care provider to play moral judge. People think laws like this won't ever turn around and bite them in the ass, but they can. What if an OB refused to treat a woman who was pregnant for the third time because he or she believes it's immoral to have more than 2 children? It could happen under this law. It is worded way too broadly, and that's the least of its problems. I can't believe nobody thinks about this stuff.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 04-25-2004, 08:20 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 07:38 PM
It's already like that in some ways. Catholic hospitals in the US will not perform abortions or voluntary sterilizations. So maybe nurses who agree with them can get a job there. But there are still extreme situations like the 'twin' story.

Also I think some of you have really grabbed at straws with worst case scenarios that will never happen. Honestly, how many people ask someone's religion before they treat them? Doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath and are not going to deny help to those in need, that's a reach. If you read the article, it clearly states 'with the exception of emergency situations' which means no one's life is going to be at stake over this.

I really don't think this has anything to do with somebody not liking someone or their ethnicity or religion and don't believe anyone would take it to that extreme. I still think this is mostly the thing about not wanting to do things that are against your beliefs, like abortion or Scientologists being against blood trasfusions or Jehovah's Witnesses being against some vaccinations. I also think it is wrong and extreme to say a person who opposes one or two procedures should avoid a medical career all together. There is still a lot of good they can do. When you take up a medical calling, you want to save lives, and if you believe that abortion or removing a head from a twin is killing and against your standards you should not be forced to do it, but they shouldn't have to avoid medicine completely! For example, while volunteering in my daughter's class, we had this Jehovah's Witness boy who wasn't allowed to make holiday decorations. So, we sent him to the room next door to color other pictures while we made them. There are plenty of doctors, nurses and orderlies, so if one doesn't want to do something, send them out of the room. There are others.


For the record, it bothers me that people could feel animosity toward the Catholics for not wanting to perform abortions or sterilizations. I had my kids at a Catholic hospital, and they were very sweet. The nuns knitted little caps for all the babies (regardless of ethnicity or religion, I'm not Catholic) and put them on them to keep the heat in their heads as soon as they are born. They also made little bead bracelets with your last name on them, blue for boys, pink for girls and put them on the babies in the bassinets to avoid baby mixups. They came around and prayed for the babies. They are very good hearted people with only the best intentions. If there are things they don't want to do, it's out of love, not hate. Don't feel harsh animosity toward them because their beliefs are not the same as yours.

*runs and hides before people hate me*

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 04-25-2004, 09:17 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,651
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
It's already like that in some ways. Catholic hospitals in the US will not perform abortions or voluntary sterilizations. So maybe nurses who agree with them can get a job there. But there are still extreme situations like the 'twin' story.

Also I think some of you have really grabbed at straws with worst case scenarios that will never happen. Honestly, how many people ask someone's religion before they treat them? Doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath and are not going to deny help to those in need, that's a reach. If you read the article, it clearly states 'with the exception of emergency situations' which means no one's life is going to be at stake over this.

I really don't think this has anything to do with somebody not liking someone or their ethnicity or religion and don't believe anyone would take it to that extreme. I still think this is mostly the thing about not wanting to do things that are against your beliefs, like abortion or Scientologists being against blood trasfusions or Jehovah's Witnesses being against some vaccinations. I also think it is wrong and extreme to say a person who opposes one or two procedures should avoid a medical career all together. There is still a lot of good they can do. When you take up a medical calling, you want to save lives, and if you believe that abortion or removing a head from a twin is killing and against your standards you should not be forced to do it, but they shouldn't have to avoid medicine completely! For example, while volunteering in my daughter's class, we had this Jehovah's Witness boy who wasn't allowed to make holiday decorations. So, we sent him to the room next door to color other pictures while we made them. There are plenty of doctors, nurses and orderlies, so if one doesn't want to do something, send them out of the room. There are others.

*runs and hides before people hate me*

No ones going to hate you, but I think you are being a bit naive in your assesment of this law.

First of all the twins story you keep going to is an extreme case that any doctor would wrestle regardless of religion. If they keep them alive as they are will they survive or will they die in a few months, or would the removing of one head allow one child to live a normal long life? To me this isn't a question of religion.

If you don't want to perform an abortion then don't work for a place that performs them. It's as easy as that.

But this law will allow people to work at clinics or hospitals that prescribe medications and someone will come along and deny a patient these medications because their religious beliefs do not allow the use of these meds.

Laws are written to take in account worse case senarios, to take in account extreme circumstances if they don't then they allow the abuse of these laws.

This law is flawed in so many ways it's not even funny. I'm glad you have enough faith in people to believe they won't abuse this power, but the fact is history shows they will. Even if just one overzealous fanatic uses it the wrong way then the law has failed.

People going into this field need to think about the possibilities that they will face and they need to choose where they work based on that. The decisions of someone's healthcare should not lie in the hands of someone else's religion.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-25-2004, 10:14 PM   #20
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Good points made in both of the last recent posts.

Kudos to both of you for keeping it clean.














some people here could learn from you
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 04-26-2004, 04:50 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
Also I think some of you have really grabbed at straws with worst case scenarios that will never happen. Honestly, how many people ask someone's religion before they treat them? Doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath and are not going to deny help to those in need, that's a reach. If you read the article, it clearly states 'with the exception of emergency situations' which means no one's life is going to be at stake over this.
I don't think it's about the religion of the patient, but rather about the religion of the doctor. The law gives doctors the option of refusing treatment to a person because they believe that according to their religion that patient doesn't "deserve" treatment.

I can think of plenty of examples which aren't a "grabbing at straws," but have in actual fact already happened. How about a doctor who refuses to provide birth control to an unmarried woman because he believes premarital sex is wrong? How about a doctor who refuses to help someone addicted to IV drugs because he believes addiction is wrong? How about a doctor who refuses to treat someone who's gay because he thinks homosexuality is wrong? The example everyone will refer to is a doctor refusing to help a woman who wants to have an abortion because he thinks abortion is wrong.

Quote:
I really don't think this has anything to do with somebody not liking someone or their ethnicity or religion and don't believe anyone would take it to that extreme.
I agree that *most* doctors won't take it to that extreme, but this law will give protection to those who do.

As far as I'm concerned, doctors don't have the right to impose their moral beliefs on their patients. If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion then he should firstly choose not to work in a hospital that performs abortions and secondly should refer women wishing to seek abortions to a doctor who can help them. He isn't forced to participate in a procedure he objects to, but equally he isn't forcing a woman to live according to his religious or moral beliefs.

Quote:
When you take up a medical calling, you want to save lives, and if you believe that abortion or removing a head from a twin is killing and against your standards you should not be forced to do it, but they shouldn't have to avoid medicine completely!


Sad as it may seem, from the med students I went to college with, I would say many don't go into medicine because they really want to help people, but because it pays well, they like the "status" of being a doctor and for some people it's the career their parents wanted for them.

I agree with you, you shouldn't avoid being a doctor because you don't like, for example, abortion. However, you should accept that just because you dislike abortion, that does not give you the right to force your patients to live according to your beliefs.

Quote:
*runs and hides before people hate me*
I don't hate you. I actually thought your post was pretty interesting.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-26-2004, 10:58 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Normal

Thanks

But I don't think anyone is forcing their beliefs on anyone if they don't want any part of something they see as wrong. They can still have it done by someone else if they must.

It is sad if someone would become a dr. for money or status, but as paranoid as doctors are about being sued I really doubt they'd deny anyone care if they needed it. The law already has exceptions for emergencies.


Anyway, I am sorry for getting into this. I'm not going to post here anymore, I see the way I feel about things in my heart is not the same as most of you and I don't want to fight or make any enemies, goodbye.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 04-26-2004, 11:27 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
You go into to the medical field to help people, not to judge or play God. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't work for a place that performs them.
Look at the flip side. Are we getting to a point where "group x" or "group y" need not apply for medical jobs because of their religious beliefs? Or these groups can apply, as long as they let society or the government define how they practice their religion?



On a separate note, I find the bill's use of "Conscientious Objector" in the title curious given the sporadic draft talk we've seen lately.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-26-2004, 11:47 AM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Look at the flip side. Are we getting to a point where "group x" or "group y" need not apply for medical jobs because of their religious beliefs? Or these groups can apply, as long as they let society or the government define how they practice their religion?
That's already the case. If your religion does not permit you to kill somebody (for whatever reason) and you want to adhere strictly to it, then don't join the Army. When you're a fully practising muslim (or Jew, or Hindu), don't apply for a job at a general meat processing company.
It is your choice to practise your beliefs the way you want it, but you have to take the consequences of your actions. Always!

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 04-26-2004, 11:51 AM   #25
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,651
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Look at the flip side. Are we getting to a point where "group x" or "group y" need not apply for medical jobs because of their religious beliefs? Or these groups can apply, as long as they let society or the government define how they practice their religion?
The way I look at it if you are a lawyer and you believe the majority of divorce laws today are ridiculous, then you probably wouldn't apply for a high profile divorce attorney.

No one is telling these people how to practice their religion. If my religion didn't allow me to eat pork, do you think I'd become a chef at a Chop House? This law is allowing those to work anywhere they desire but to pick and choose the tasks they'll perform.

Imagine if this applied to every field. As someone in the field of architecture( for the time being) I could tell my boss tomorrow that I will not work on this type of building because I feel imitating past works is immoral or I won't do any work for certain corporations because I believe their practices are wrong and I will not perpetuate their corruption.

Life would be grand if we could create our own job descriptions wouldn't it? People need to take the moral responsibility before they apply for the position.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-26-2004, 12:26 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
This law is allowing those to work anywhere they desire but to pick and choose the tasks they'll perform.
As I understand the intent of the law, it allows people to opt of non-emergency procedures. My questions was: Should someone forgo a medical career on the basis that they (for example) might be forced to conduct or assist in an elective abortion?

The law already allows for reasonable accommodations for a variety of factors. Narrowly written, I could see this type of law fitting into this category.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-26-2004, 12:50 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Mullen-Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Antonio/Austin, TX
Posts: 4,951
Local Time: 07:38 PM
I think it's a horrible law Imagine how people will feel when they go to the doctor and he/she will refuse to treat them. I would feel disturbed.
__________________
Mullen-Girl is offline  
Old 04-26-2004, 01:14 PM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,651
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


As I understand the intent of the law, it allows people to opt of non-emergency procedures. My questions was: Should someone forgo a medical career on the basis that they (for example) might be forced to conduct or assist in an elective abortion?

The law already allows for reasonable accommodations for a variety of factors. Narrowly written, I could see this type of law fitting into this category.
Why are they working in a place that will perform elective abortions if they know they're job description may call upon them to aid in one?

No one should forgoe a medical career, but they will have to take the reponsibilty to work somewhere that fits into the realm of what they can handle or are willing to do.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-26-2004, 03:27 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
It is sad if someone would become a dr. for money or status, but as paranoid as doctors are about being sued I really doubt they'd deny anyone care if they needed it.
That's a good point.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
Anyway, I am sorry for getting into this. I'm not going to post here anymore, I see the way I feel about things in my heart is not the same as most of you and I don't want to fight or make any enemies, goodbye.
Eh, if you wish to not continue on in this argument, it's cool, your choice and all that. Glad we got your perspective, though-I agree with FizzingWhizzbees, it was interesting hearing your thoughts. .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-26-2004, 04:25 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
As I understand the intent of the law, it allows people to opt of non-emergency procedures. My questions was: Should someone forgo a medical career on the basis that they (for example) might be forced to conduct or assist in an elective abortion?
When is a procedure not an emergency? Where is the exact border. Yes, life threatening is an emergency, but then? Permanent disability? Temporary disability? Unusual/excessive scarring?



Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn 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 07:38 PM.


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