Trump Administration to overall HHS to permit workers to deny service based on moral objections

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

And when I say "moral objections" I mean the usual garbage. Not performing abortions, denying service to transgendered people who want to transition and "other services for which they have religious or moral objections," so I wouldn't be surprised if this thing is worded loosely enough to allow for such things as denying AIDS medicine to homosexual men.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

Remember all those people that said Trump was pro-LGBT? Notice how that defense died a quick death, but the people who had defended him didn't do anything to condemn the clearly not so pro-LGBT stuff he and his administration did? I remember. I will never fucking forget. You know, I know a lot of nice religious people. I really am struggling to figure out why religion in this country seems to have been boiled down to people wanting the right to legally discriminate against the LGBT community (oh, and tell women what they're allowed and not allowed to do with their body, that old chestnut.)

"But just go to another hospital!"

Sure, unless you're one of the increasing number of people in this country that literally do not have access to a non-religious hospital. https://www.aclu.org/news/new-report-reveals-1-6-us-hospital-beds-are-catholic-facilities-prohibit-essential-health-care

erttheking:
And when I say "moral objections" I mean the usual garbage. Not performing abortions, denying service to transgendered people who want to transition and "other services for which they have religious or moral objections," so I wouldn't be surprised if this thing is worded loosely enough to allow for such things as denying AIDS medicine to homosexual men.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

Remember all those people that said Trump was pro-LGBT? Notice how that defense died a quick death, but the people who had defended him didn't do anything to condemn the clearly not so pro-LGBT stuff he and his administration did? I remember. I will never fucking forget. You know, I know a lot of nice religious people. I really am struggling to figure out why religion in this country seems to have been boiled down to people wanting the right to legally discriminate against the LGBT community (oh, and tell women what they're allowed and not allowed to do with their body, that old chestnut.)

power and control flimsily justified with their coating of religion. These men are addicted to it, and those people keep falling for it, excusing it through stubborn hatred

Well, to balance the argument up a bit, let's look at this snippet from the Washington Post article:

The description of the division's mandate cites abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide as examples of the types of procedures that would be covered. But the language is broad, and health experts said it appears likely to also cover a host of other scenarios, such as treating transgender patients or those seeking to transition to the opposite sex.

Bearing in mind that the named items are things which it would be potentially traumatic for a health-worker to be obliged to assist with against their beliefs (that said, quite why a health-worker opposed to abortion would be in a place in which they were being pressured into assisting with one is a valid question). Why should we be neglecting the mental wellbeing of health workers? And arguably forcing them to conduct operations / procedures which they believe is causing direct harm to the recipient.

It depends ultimately in how this currently unclarified system works. If it is protecting the workers without significantly impinging on the rights of the populace, there is no issue. If it completely removes access to certain strands of healthcare, that's more significant and conditions should be added to licences for clinics and the likes to mitigate it.

odd considering catholics support for him is at 38%. To be honest, i did not even know catholic hospitals even existed, and i live in NY (they certainly dont advertise themselves as such). Looking it up now, there are a few near me, most of which i never heard of even though ive lived here for 30 years.

Looking at some articles it appears that catholic hospitals is on the rise, which is again odd as basically everything else catholic is on the decline.

That said, if you believe that abortion is murder (and this is coming from a pro-choice person) then you should not be forced to become a direct accomplice in said murder. On the other hand, it is now your responsibility to find them an adequate hospital and take care of transportation/transition on your dime. Afterall, it is your hangup.

So if I had a business in America I could refuse to serve Trump supporters?

PsychedelicDiamond:
So if I had a business in America I could refuse to serve Trump supporters?

depends on the business, it always has. For example....hmmm not sure if i should open this can back up, but the wonder woman movie showing in which only women were allowed.

Catnip1024:

Bearing in mind that the named items are things which it would be potentially traumatic for a health-worker to be obliged to assist with against their beliefs (that said, quite why a health-worker opposed to abortion would be in a place in which they were being pressured into assisting with one is a valid question). Why should we be neglecting the mental wellbeing of health workers? And arguably forcing them to conduct operations / procedures which they believe is causing direct harm to the recipient.

It's not going to be just individual doctors. You could be a completely non-religious doctor who works for a hospital that gets bought out by a religious conglomerate (something which is happening all over the country), and then your hands would be completely tied on pain of being fired.

A really big problem right now for reproductive rights is religious groups buying out hospitals and clinics and then using religious exemptions to de facto cut off reproductive health access. It's a shitshow and no one's talking about it because no one dares trigger the delicate feelings of the religious right.

renegade7:
It's not going to be just individual doctors. You could be a completely non-religious doctor who works for a hospital that gets bought out by a religious conglomerate (something which is happening all over the country), and then your hands would be completely tied on pain of being fired.

A really big problem right now for reproductive rights is religious groups buying out hospitals and clinics and then using religious exemptions to de facto cut off reproductive health access. It's a shitshow and no one's talking about it because no one dares trigger the delicate feelings of the religious right.

Well, if that's the way this is worked, that is where it falls down. Because that gives operators the ability to refuse the right of a worker to provide treatment, which is exactly the same situation this is supposed to prevent but in reverse.

Then again, this is all the ultimate crazy consequence of privatising healthcare. One of them, at least.

Catnip1024:
Well, to balance the argument up a bit, let's look at this snippet from the Washington Post article:

The description of the division's mandate cites abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide as examples of the types of procedures that would be covered. But the language is broad, and health experts said it appears likely to also cover a host of other scenarios, such as treating transgender patients or those seeking to transition to the opposite sex.

Bearing in mind that the named items are things which it would be potentially traumatic for a health-worker to be obliged to assist with against their beliefs (that said, quite why a health-worker opposed to abortion would be in a place in which they were being pressured into assisting with one is a valid question). Why should we be neglecting the mental wellbeing of health workers? And arguably forcing them to conduct operations / procedures which they believe is causing direct harm to the recipient.

It depends ultimately in how this currently unclarified system works. If it is protecting the workers without significantly impinging on the rights of the populace, there is no issue. If it completely removes access to certain strands of healthcare, that's more significant and conditions should be added to licences for clinics and the likes to mitigate it.

You know, I consider the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of the patients to take priority over that of the health workers, mainly since people have died from being denied abortions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman

If a health worker can't keep a patient from dying because of their moral beliefs, then frankly they need to remove themselves from their position and find a job where their religious views don't get in the way of saving someone's life. And if I want a vasectomy, I have a right to get one. The mental well being of health care workers is not something in such constant jeopardy that its warranted stepping on the rights of patients.

And even your source talks about how it could be used to deny service to transgendered people, and after Trump tried to ban transgendered people from the military, I think he's lost the right for a benefit of the doubt here. Really, this is just the latest in a long pattern of "religious freedoms" that mainly serve to give people the right to step on others.

erttheking:
You know, I consider the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of the patients to take priority over that of the health workers, mainly since people have died from being denied abortions.

Which is a terrible attitude. Add a clause which requires clinics to be able to provide a set spectrum of operations by all means. Don't override other peoples rights just because you consider yourself superior to their beliefs.

If a health worker can't keep a patient from dying because of their moral beliefs, then frankly they need to remove themselves from their position and find a job where their religious views don't get in the way of saving someone's life.

Let's not get hysterical here. None of these operations are dealing with instantaneously life-threatening issues. If a member of staff deems themself unable to conduct said operation, and passes you back to the admin desk or whoever else to redistribute the case, there is no issue. It's no different than a member of staff considering themself incompetent to perform said operation, or that it would be better conducted by a local expert.

It all comes down to how it is implemented.

And if I want a vasectomy, I have a right to get one.

Sure. But what forces down an obligation on any particular worker to give you it? The arguments that the health service must respect ones rights applies to organisations, not individuals. If the organisation compels a worker to do something against their beliefs, that is not good for anyone, least of all you having a delicate operation conducted by a disgruntled worker.

The mental well being of health care workers is not something in such constant jeopardy that its warranted stepping on the rights of patients.

Well, I don't know about the US per say, but the UK nursing profession is in jeopardy due to shit conditions and poor respect for staff all round. It's a stressful, often thankless job. Even your more senior professionals are under a lot of pressure and face a constant stream of work, in which any mistake can lead to serious consequences.

And that aside, at the end of the day, bear in mind the first rule of first aid - you look after yourself first. Because if you become incapable, you are unable to help others even if you want to. That is just as valid mentally as physically.

And even your source talks about how it could be used to deny service to transgendered people, and after Trump tried to ban transgendered people from the military, I think he's lost the right for a benefit of the doubt here. Really, this is just the latest in a long pattern of "religious freedoms" that mainly serve to give people the right to step on others.

Sure, it wasn't a specially selected source by any means. It just gave a little more detail.

And yes, it could be implemented badly. But so could anything. Crying discrimination before you even know how something works is a little jumping the gun. Even if it is, though, it is not the idea that is wrong, it is the implementation. The separation between individual and company. There are ways to work this so that everybody is happy. I'm just not optimistic it will happen.

Catnip1024:

Bearing in mind that the named items are things which it would be potentially traumatic for a health-worker to be obliged to assist with against their beliefs (that said, quite why a health-worker opposed to abortion would be in a place in which they were being pressured into assisting with one is a valid question). Why should we be neglecting the mental wellbeing of health workers? And arguably forcing them to conduct operations / procedures which they believe is causing direct harm to the recipient.

Medical ethics are normative and based principally around the good of the patient. Medical professionals absolutely should not, under any circumstances, be considering the treatment of the patient via their external (non-medical) moral considerations. Part of training as a medical professional is extensive training in professional ethics; in the UK, for instance, a medical doctor will need to pass a fitness to practice exam, much of which is about professional ethics. A medical doctor has almost certainly been expected to swear a specific ethical oath - although I do appreciate some doctors may have taken this as nothing but a tickbox exercise.

Thus actually I don't think this argument washes at all. If a job involves medical duties that a medical professional cannot countenance under other ethical systems, he or she should not be doing the job at all.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
You know, I consider the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of the patients to take priority over that of the health workers, mainly since people have died from being denied abortions.

Which is a terrible attitude. Add a clause which requires clinics to be able to provide a set spectrum of operations by all means. Don't override other peoples rights just because you consider yourself superior to their beliefs.

Last I checked, one doesn't have the right to voluntarily enter a profession while refusing to perform required parts of that profession.

Should I be allowed to keep my job at a women's clothing store if I refuse to fold clothes due to a belief that creases are the work of the devil? Should I be allowed to keep my job when I enlist as a member of the armed forces and purposely track into an infantry MOS then refuse to take part in combat against other Christians? Should I be allowed to keep my software engineering job at a defense contractor if I refuse to program anything that might be used by the military because I don't believe in violence?

All of those could potentially be "traumatic" to me as they go against my beliefs, but all of those actions are an integral part of the job. As a healthcare professional, doing approved medical operations offered by your practice/employer for the good of the patient is an integral part of the job. If you cannot perform those tasks, you have no right to keep your job; either suck it up and act as a professional or find a new line of employment that can completely conform to your personal beliefs.

Ahh, religion.

Proof once more you can actually legislate pure malice and premeditated harm towards other people and give it a moral paint job.

Kind of hoping this gets upheld as unconstitutional during the challenge.

Agema:
Medical ethics are normative and based principally around the good of the patient. Medical professionals absolutely should not, under any circumstances, be considering the treatment of the patient via their external (non-medical) moral considerations. Part of training as a medical professional is extensive training in professional ethics; in the UK, for instance, a medical doctor will need to pass a fitness to practice exam, much of which is about professional ethics. A medical doctor has almost certainly been expected to swear a specific ethical oath - although I do appreciate some doctors may have taken this as nothing but a tickbox exercise.

Thus actually I don't think this argument washes at all. If a job involves medical duties that a medical professional cannot countenance under other ethical systems, he or she should not be doing the job at all.

The issue here is part what "the good of the patient" entails, and part what one can reasonably expect of the member of staff.

Take the specifically mentioned assisted suicide. That does not improve the wellbeing of the patient. It arguably limits their suffering, it is arguably a net benefit all around, but it is an ethical quagmire. To top that off, can you realistically expect a member of staff to be happy consciously contributing to the death of another? If you realistically expect killing people to be something that medical professionals should be fine and happy doing, I'm not sure we're going to find much common ground.

Take it a step further - abortion. Ethically, one could consider the foetus as a patient as well. It may not be sentient as yet, but it's easy to see how that is still a major issue for individuals to deal with ethically.

The problem with the US is that if you ask 100 people what the best thing for the patient is in the above scenarios, you'd probably get a dozen answers. You can't generate some master "ethical framework" that all staff must follow. Things need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and sometimes you will come across situations that certain members of staff find unpalatable. In which circumstances, they should be able to pass it on without repercussions.

Avnger:
Last I checked, one doesn't have the right to voluntarily enter a profession while refusing to perform required parts of that profession.

Last I checked, one isn't quizzed on every possible situation before one receives a job. Is it any different from going into a regular business and coming across something ethically troubling - concealing of known issues from the customer, use of techniques bordering on bribery to gain contracts, sort of thing? You could argue that that's all part of the job for those, too.

Should I be allowed to keep my job at a women's clothing store if I refuse to fold clothes due to a belief that creases are the work of the devil? Should I be allowed to keep my job when I enlist as a member of the armed forces and purposely track into an infantry MOS then refuse to take part in combat against other Christians? Should I be allowed to keep my software engineering job at a defense contractor if I refuse to program anything that might be used by the military because I don't believe in violence?

The difference being your examples all have it being the main part of the job. A GP could be perfect 99% of the time, but have an issue with a single procedure.

Hell, said GP could actually be more useful than most others depending what additional specialisation they have. Should they still be cast aside because of one operation they are unwilling to countenance?

The system should be set up so as to be flexible enough to meet everyone's needs. A one-strike rule against anyone who doesn't conform with your view of the world does not help matters. Compromise makes the world go round.

Avnger:

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
You know, I consider the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of the patients to take priority over that of the health workers, mainly since people have died from being denied abortions.

Which is a terrible attitude. Add a clause which requires clinics to be able to provide a set spectrum of operations by all means. Don't override other peoples rights just because you consider yourself superior to their beliefs.

Last I checked, one doesn't have the right to voluntarily enter a profession while refusing to perform required parts of that profession.

Should I be allowed to keep my job at a women's clothing store if I refuse to fold clothes due to a belief that creases are the work of the devil? Should I be allowed to keep my job when I enlist as a member of the armed forces and purposely track into an infantry MOS then refuse to take part in combat against other Christians? Should I be allowed to keep my software engineering job at a defense contractor if I refuse to program anything that might be used by the military because I don't believe in violence?

All of those could potentially be "traumatic" to me as they go against my beliefs, but all of those actions are an integral part of the job. As a healthcare professional, doing approved medical operations offered by your practice/employer for the good of the patient is an integral part of the job. If you cannot perform those tasks, you have no right to keep your job; either suck it up and act as a professional or find a new line of employment that can completely conform to your personal beliefs.

As per the Bible, you could argue you get to stone your boss at your clothing store for distributing clothes made from two different types of cloth or fabric blends. Arguably you get to murder me because I've made a tunic from a poly-cotton blend. Depends on how you want to define 'woven' with ideas of embroidery and current ideals of machine stitching and the thread commonly used.

Lev 19:19

You should also murder anyone that accidentally foaled a mule.

Heathens deserve it...

Or you know... arguably you shouldn't let people with such convictions escape the mental institution be allowed to do a job where those convictions lead to greater injuries. Where they can premeditatively hurt people through actively withholding empirically backed beneficial medical services to patients for arbitrary reasons unfounded in the condition of people's medical wellbeing.

Are these doctors going to openly disclose their affiliations before people pay them or seek their guidance?

Can these doctors maybe carry some form of identification at all times they lawfully must display so people can evaluate their legal capacity to pursue malpractice? Are they lawfully beholden to tell a patient their treatment options, without religious interference, before they are considered soundly protected by law to withhold actual treatments?

Seems pretty loose on details.

And keep in mind this fabric and mule conditions is stuff *actually* in the Old Testament. Not just ramblings that experiment and evolve the writings. It's quite explicitly written.

Are we limiting specifically to accepted codex, or whstever 'feelsies' weird interpretation?

Can you file fraud charges with doctors unless they actually live up to every passage in whatever religious text they cite? I mean... If a doctor lies to someone about why they can't perform an operation, clearly that can only be a good faith clause if they are not to be found otherwise lacking, right?

I've read four versions of various Bibles cover to cover during my time studying history... maybe they can appoint me as if some form of inquisitive as to religious fidelity of those that espouse faith but may be lacking...? A type of... Inquisitor perhaps...?

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
You know, I consider the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of the patients to take priority over that of the health workers, mainly since people have died from being denied abortions.

Which is a terrible attitude. Add a clause which requires clinics to be able to provide a set spectrum of operations by all means. Don't override other peoples rights just because you consider yourself superior to their beliefs.

If a health worker can't keep a patient from dying because of their moral beliefs, then frankly they need to remove themselves from their position and find a job where their religious views don't get in the way of saving someone's life.

Let's not get hysterical here. None of these operations are dealing with instantaneously life-threatening issues. If a member of staff deems themself unable to conduct said operation, and passes you back to the admin desk or whoever else to redistribute the case, there is no issue. It's no different than a member of staff considering themself incompetent to perform said operation, or that it would be better conducted by a local expert.

It all comes down to how it is implemented.

And if I want a vasectomy, I have a right to get one.

Sure. But what forces down an obligation on any particular worker to give you it? The arguments that the health service must respect ones rights applies to organisations, not individuals. If the organisation compels a worker to do something against their beliefs, that is not good for anyone, least of all you having a delicate operation conducted by a disgruntled worker.

The mental well being of health care workers is not something in such constant jeopardy that its warranted stepping on the rights of patients.

Well, I don't know about the US per say, but the UK nursing profession is in jeopardy due to shit conditions and poor respect for staff all round. It's a stressful, often thankless job. Even your more senior professionals are under a lot of pressure and face a constant stream of work, in which any mistake can lead to serious consequences.

And that aside, at the end of the day, bear in mind the first rule of first aid - you look after yourself first. Because if you become incapable, you are unable to help others even if you want to. That is just as valid mentally as physically.

And even your source talks about how it could be used to deny service to transgendered people, and after Trump tried to ban transgendered people from the military, I think he's lost the right for a benefit of the doubt here. Really, this is just the latest in a long pattern of "religious freedoms" that mainly serve to give people the right to step on others.

Sure, it wasn't a specially selected source by any means. It just gave a little more detail.

And yes, it could be implemented badly. But so could anything. Crying discrimination before you even know how something works is a little jumping the gun. Even if it is, though, it is not the idea that is wrong, it is the implementation. The separation between individual and company. There are ways to work this so that everybody is happy. I'm just not optimistic it will happen.

No. You don't get to do that. You don't get to claim that the feelings of doctors are more important than patients getting access to potential life saving treatments, when wag your finger at me at about stepping on other people's rights. You haven't earned it. And that clause won't be added because the people penning this want things like abortions gone for good. That is not a remotely controversial statement.

So if it's not life threatening it's ok to turn people away? As mentioned, this involves trans people, and I'd rather not contribute to the environment that makes so many of them commit suicide. And it's bern pointed out many Americans only have access to religious hospitals, who could implement this policy in bulk. Those people are out of luck.

It's their fucking job that's what. You don't get to pick and chose what parts of your job you want to do. If they can't do their job, they need to quit and get a new one, they aren't qualified for their current kne.. You implying my safety would be at risk from s butt hurt doctor just further my point of them being unprofessional and a liability.

We aren't talking about the UK, and the people who want to use this, according to you, are already incapable of helping some people.

No, this is an idea that falls into the same anti-LGBT "religious freedom" shit we keep seeing. And it's pretty obvious.

Fuck man. What does Trump have to do to get you to stop being an apologist for him

erttheking:

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
You know, I consider the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of the patients to take priority over that of the health workers, mainly since people have died from being denied abortions.

Which is a terrible attitude. Add a clause which requires clinics to be able to provide a set spectrum of operations by all means. Don't override other peoples rights just because you consider yourself superior to their beliefs.

If a health worker can't keep a patient from dying because of their moral beliefs, then frankly they need to remove themselves from their position and find a job where their religious views don't get in the way of saving someone's life.

Let's not get hysterical here. None of these operations are dealing with instantaneously life-threatening issues. If a member of staff deems themself unable to conduct said operation, and passes you back to the admin desk or whoever else to redistribute the case, there is no issue. It's no different than a member of staff considering themself incompetent to perform said operation, or that it would be better conducted by a local expert.

It all comes down to how it is implemented.

And if I want a vasectomy, I have a right to get one.

Sure. But what forces down an obligation on any particular worker to give you it? The arguments that the health service must respect ones rights applies to organisations, not individuals. If the organisation compels a worker to do something against their beliefs, that is not good for anyone, least of all you having a delicate operation conducted by a disgruntled worker.

The mental well being of health care workers is not something in such constant jeopardy that its warranted stepping on the rights of patients.

Well, I don't know about the US per say, but the UK nursing profession is in jeopardy due to shit conditions and poor respect for staff all round. It's a stressful, often thankless job. Even your more senior professionals are under a lot of pressure and face a constant stream of work, in which any mistake can lead to serious consequences.

And that aside, at the end of the day, bear in mind the first rule of first aid - you look after yourself first. Because if you become incapable, you are unable to help others even if you want to. That is just as valid mentally as physically.

And even your source talks about how it could be used to deny service to transgendered people, and after Trump tried to ban transgendered people from the military, I think he's lost the right for a benefit of the doubt here. Really, this is just the latest in a long pattern of "religious freedoms" that mainly serve to give people the right to step on others.

Sure, it wasn't a specially selected source by any means. It just gave a little more detail.

And yes, it could be implemented badly. But so could anything. Crying discrimination before you even know how something works is a little jumping the gun. Even if it is, though, it is not the idea that is wrong, it is the implementation. The separation between individual and company. There are ways to work this so that everybody is happy. I'm just not optimistic it will happen.

No. You don?t get to do that. You don?t get to claim that the feelings of doctors are more important than patients getting access to potential life saving treatments, when wag your finger at me at about stepping on other people?s rights. You haven?t earned it. And that clause won?t be added because the people penning this want things like abortions gone for good. That is not a remotely controversial statement.

So if it?s not life threatening it?s ok to turn people away? As mentioned, this involves trans people, and I?d rather not contribute to the environment that makes so many of them commit suicide. And it?s bern pointed out many Americans only have access to religious hospitals, who could implement this policy in bulk. Those people are out of luck.

It?s their fucking job that?s what. You don?t get to pick and chose what parts of your job you want to do. If they can?t do their job, they need to quit and get a new one, they aren?t qualified for their current kne.. You implying my safety would be at risk from s butt hurt doctor just further my point of them being unprofessional and a liability.

We aren?t talking about the UK, and the people who want to use this, according to you, are already incapable of helping some people.

No, this is an idea that falls into the same anti-LGBT ?religious freedom? shit we keep seeing. And it?s pretty obvious.

Fuck man. What does Trump have to do to get you to stop being an apologist for him

Also this bill could be seen as a transgression of one's right to life and and implied right to property. Both of which will be transcendently more important I should think in a court actually hearing a case concerning human rights violations. For starters, we know omitting relative and important medical information and advice to a patient is due cause for malpractice and criminal negligence ... there is a clear hierarchy of importance here, and life and property trump religious freedom.

Of course we are talking Trumpland.

Frankly if they want to push this agenda... every participating medic should have to give a pamphlet to each patient, in a controlled and taped environment, with a audio transcript, with a release form, exactly how they will be mistreating each patient so as to make it absolutely clear just what a patient can expect.

Because you're asking people to pay not only their own money, but also taxpayer money, so a doctor can not do their job and also be religious. And that was always partly the case... which is already bad enough, this just takes the cake. Just waiting for all those Christian """scientists""" becoming doctors and telling old people or mothers they don't need a flu or Rubella shot...

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Avnger:

Catnip1024:
Which is a terrible attitude. Add a clause which requires clinics to be able to provide a set spectrum of operations by all means. Don't override other peoples rights just because you consider yourself superior to their beliefs.

Last I checked, one doesn't have the right to voluntarily enter a profession while refusing to perform required parts of that profession.

Should I be allowed to keep my job at a women's clothing store if I refuse to fold clothes due to a belief that creases are the work of the devil? Should I be allowed to keep my job when I enlist as a member of the armed forces and purposely track into an infantry MOS then refuse to take part in combat against other Christians? Should I be allowed to keep my software engineering job at a defense contractor if I refuse to program anything that might be used by the military because I don't believe in violence?

All of those could potentially be "traumatic" to me as they go against my beliefs, but all of those actions are an integral part of the job. As a healthcare professional, doing approved medical operations offered by your practice/employer for the good of the patient is an integral part of the job. If you cannot perform those tasks, you have no right to keep your job; either suck it up and act as a professional or find a new line of employment that can completely conform to your personal beliefs.

As per the Bible, you could argue you get to stone your boss at your clothing store for distributing clothes made from two different types of cloth or fabric blends.

Arguably you get to murder me because I've made a tunic from a poly-cotton blend. Depends on how you want to define 'woven' with ideas of embroidery and current ideals of machine stitching and the thread commonly used.

Lev 19:19

You should also murder anyone that accidentally foaled a mule.

Heathens deserve it...

Or you know... arguably you shouldn't let people with such convictions escape the mental institution be allowed to do a job where those convictions lead to greater injuries. Where they can premeditatively hurt people through withholding empirically backed beneficial medical services to patients.

And keep in mind this fabric and mule conditions is stuff *actually* in the Old Testament. Not just ramblings that experiment and evolve the writings. It's quite explicitly written.

Can you file fraud charges with doctors unless they actually live up to every passage in whatever religious text they cite? I mean... If a doctor lies to someone about why they can't perform an operation, clearly that can only be a good faith clause if they are not to be found otherwise lacking, right?

I've read four versions of various Bibles cover to cover during my time studying history... maybe they can appoint me as if some form of inquisitive as to religious fidelity of those that espouse faith but may be lacking...? A type of... Inquisitor perhaps...?

....Are you using the old testament to support an argument against christians? The Old testament is the old covenant that was rendered void with the death of jesus. It was a set of laws meant to be obeyed by isrealites, not christians, mostly to make them stand out from the rest.

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/christian-life/why-dont-christians-follow-all-the-old-testament-laws/
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-we-obey-old-testament-law

The fact there are so many pages that are labeled along the lines of "should christians follow the old testament?" or "why dont christians follow the old testament" kinda negates your argument.

....aaaaannnnddd now everyone here probably believes im some super devout christian person even though i havent been in a church in 20 years and this is probably the most ive ever talked about christianity in 5 years.

Ryotknife:

....Are you using the old testament to support an argument against christians? The Old testament is the old covenant that was rendered void with the death of jesus. It was a set of laws meant to be obeyed by isrealites, not christians, mostly to make them stand out from the rest.

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/christian-life/why-dont-christians-follow-all-the-old-testament-laws/
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-we-obey-old-testament-law

The fact there are so many pages that are labeled along the lines of "should christians follow the old testament?" or "why dont christians follow the old testament" kinda negates your argument.

Who said anything about simply making it about Christians? I'm willing to extend it to any religious text that people cite as their religious doctrine for not doing something. I'm not going to be finnicky. Also are you legitimately telling me that Christians do not base much or their moral understandings of turpitude from passages in the OT? I... yeah, no. Pretty sure Puritans milled Deuteronomy pretty fucking hard.

I assume people understand what they're actually saying when they specifically quote from Mosaic Law or read from its extrapolations as per any Catechism.

Worse comes to the worst, I'm also willing to hang people depending on the specifics of how they cook goat if you're just going to pretend like Leviticus doesn't exist. Clearly you need to set some boundaries whenever people simply say the Bible informs them about something.

Moral objections?

Can hospitals refuse to do a simple procedure on a politician or CEO because of moral objections to their stances and practices?

What about a cop with a history of questionable shootings being refused knee surgery that would put them back on duty?

An ex-con not being given treatment due to prison time?

If "moral objections" only supercedes medical oaths when it's religious morality, then....yeaaaah.....no.

Ryotknife:

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Avnger:

Last I checked, one doesn't have the right to voluntarily enter a profession while refusing to perform required parts of that profession.

Should I be allowed to keep my job at a women's clothing store if I refuse to fold clothes due to a belief that creases are the work of the devil? Should I be allowed to keep my job when I enlist as a member of the armed forces and purposely track into an infantry MOS then refuse to take part in combat against other Christians? Should I be allowed to keep my software engineering job at a defense contractor if I refuse to program anything that might be used by the military because I don't believe in violence?

All of those could potentially be "traumatic" to me as they go against my beliefs, but all of those actions are an integral part of the job. As a healthcare professional, doing approved medical operations offered by your practice/employer for the good of the patient is an integral part of the job. If you cannot perform those tasks, you have no right to keep your job; either suck it up and act as a professional or find a new line of employment that can completely conform to your personal beliefs.

As per the Bible, you could argue you get to stone your boss at your clothing store for distributing clothes made from two different types of cloth or fabric blends.

Arguably you get to murder me because I've made a tunic from a poly-cotton blend. Depends on how you want to define 'woven' with ideas of embroidery and current ideals of machine stitching and the thread commonly used.

Lev 19:19

You should also murder anyone that accidentally foaled a mule.

Heathens deserve it...

Or you know... arguably you shouldn't let people with such convictions escape the mental institution be allowed to do a job where those convictions lead to greater injuries. Where they can premeditatively hurt people through withholding empirically backed beneficial medical services to patients.

And keep in mind this fabric and mule conditions is stuff *actually* in the Old Testament. Not just ramblings that experiment and evolve the writings. It's quite explicitly written.

Can you file fraud charges with doctors unless they actually live up to every passage in whatever religious text they cite? I mean... If a doctor lies to someone about why they can't perform an operation, clearly that can only be a good faith clause if they are not to be found otherwise lacking, right?

I've read four versions of various Bibles cover to cover during my time studying history... maybe they can appoint me as if some form of inquisitive as to religious fidelity of those that espouse faith but may be lacking...? A type of... Inquisitor perhaps...?

....Are you using the old testament to support an argument against christians? The Old testament is the old covenant that was rendered void with the death of jesus. It was a set of laws meant to be obeyed by isrealites, not christians, mostly to make them stand out from the rest.

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/christian-life/why-dont-christians-follow-all-the-old-testament-laws/
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-we-obey-old-testament-law

The fact there are so many pages that are labeled along the lines of "should christians follow the old testament?" or "why dont christians follow the old testament" kinda negates your argument.

....aaaaannnnddd now everyone here probably believes im some super devout christian person even though i havent been in a church in 20 years and this is probably the most ive ever talked about christianity in 5 years.

And yet the Religious Right regularly references the OT regarding the political policies they pursue. Funny how the OT both counts and doesn't count whenever it's convenient, huh?

Anybody who refuses to treat LGBT patients because they're LGBT is not a fucking Christian, unless I missed the "Let the people you disagree with find help somewhere else or die" part of the bible.

If you have a problem with gender reassignment surgery, well then they're generally performed at pretty fucking specific clinics so don't go work there and don't specialise in gender reassignment surgery. It's not like a goddammed podiatrist is going to have to perform it.

If you, as a doctor, just straight up refuse to treat an LGBT person full stop because of your Christian views then fuck you, you're not a Christian and you shouldn't be a doctor.

CheetoDust:
If you, as a doctor, just straight up refuse to treat an LGBT person full stop because of your Christian views then fuck you, you're not a Christian and you shouldn't be a doctor.

Shouldn't be a doctor, sure, but unfortunately being a Christian covers all sorts of attitudes.

Catnip1024:
You can't generate some master "ethical framework" that all staff must follow.

Answering this first is relevant...

Not only can you generate a "master ethical framework", but society long since already has. As I said above, UK medical doctors must pass a fitness to practice test involving professional ethics. How else do you think this is done except via an established ethical framework? How else do you think ethical misconduct results in staff being struck off?

The ethical framework might of course involve complexity and difficult decisions; various ethical dimensions can clash.

The issue here is part what "the good of the patient" entails, and part what one can reasonably expect of the member of staff...

Take the specifically mentioned assisted suicide...

Take it a step further - abortion.

A member of staff has contractually obliged job duties, which will be drawn up in accordance with law and professional ethics. You can refuse to do things inconsistent with law and good professional ethics, but if just make up your own ethics, you can justly face disciplinary action the minute you fail to carry out your duty. You can query the ethical guidelines and campaign to change them, and you might find a few areas where there's an error in job duties inconsistent with ethics. But you don't get to pick and choose what you feel like.

It is that simple.

As said, if your job involves doing a medically ethical procedure you cannot countenance for other reasons, you need to get a new job.

Catnip1024:
Bearing in mind that the named items are things which it would be potentially traumatic for a health-worker to be obliged to assist with against their beliefs (that said, quite why a health-worker opposed to abortion would be in a place in which they were being pressured into assisting with one is a valid question). Why should we be neglecting the mental wellbeing of health workers? And arguably forcing them to conduct operations / procedures which they believe is causing direct harm to the recipient.

Because, for example, in some countries it is midwives that assist in abortion and are responsible for information about preventive measures and abortion (as the midwife's duties extend to all things related to a woman's reproduction).

Furthermore, this is a stupid argument, because as a doctor or nurse or orderly your job is literally to provide the expertise someone else needs to maintain or restore their health. If that means complex neurosurgery, so be it. If it means prolonged rehab, so be it. If it means sitting by their bedside as they die in immense agony from lung cancer, so fucking be it. Medical and nursing ethics are all about not harming the patient and always putting the patient first, and if you can't put the patient above your own moral objection to them being transgendered or wanting an abortion, you've failed in upholding the ethical code of your profession.

Here's the thing: We are already expected to harbor the pain of people who live in intense misery or pain, to tell people that they'll never recover or that their lives are over. We are already expected to watch people die and to give everything we've got to prevent it in those situations when we've got even a sliver of a chance to save people. Yet no one ever stops to think about what kind of working environment you must be in when you're expected to stand with blood up to your elbows trying to do CPR, only to turn around, give up and realize that that patient is dead... and then literally go out of the room, wash off and go into the next room to ask that patient if they are hungry or need another blanket.

No one, and I mean literally no fucking one, cares about a nurses (or doctors) mental well being if it is put in contrast to the suffering of her patient. And that's alright, that's how it should be, because I get paid to put the patient ahead of myself, I get paid to take care of the patient no matter who they are, what they believe or what their treatment entails. Because that's what it means to be a health care professional, to realize that my own personal beliefs are worth nothing when put next to the needs of the person I am employed to health.

Healthcare isn't about us, it is about our patients and I've got no respect for any supposed colleague of mine that'd put their own personal morals above the needs of their patient.

Catnip1024:
You can't generate some master "ethical framework" that all staff must follow.

Sure you can. Here's the Internatiol Council of Nurses Code of Ethics for Nurses.
Here's the Swedish law concerning health care, which has several specific ethic considerations (ie. Chap 1 ?2a3 "the health care shall be built on a respect for the patients self-determination and integrity").
And we've got the Swedish Patient Law which determines all the rights of the patient. Chap 1 ?6 states: Healthcare shall be provided with respect for everybody's equal worth and the individual persons dignity.

Really, for those of us who are licensed health care professionals, this is everyday stuff. We have common ethical frameworks, both within our profession and within the organizations we work in. That you seem to think otherwise suggests that you don't really know much about the daily activities of health care.

erttheking:
And when I say "moral objections" I mean the usual garbage. Not performing abortions, denying service to transgendered people who want to transition and "other services for which they have religious or moral objections," so I wouldn't be surprised if this thing is worded loosely enough to allow for such things as denying AIDS medicine to homosexual men.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

Remember all those people that said Trump was pro-LGBT? Notice how that defense died a quick death, but the people who had defended him didn't do anything to condemn the clearly not so pro-LGBT stuff he and his administration did? I remember. I will never fucking forget. You know, I know a lot of nice religious people. I really am struggling to figure out why religion in this country seems to have been boiled down to people wanting the right to legally discriminate against the LGBT community (oh, and tell women what they're allowed and not allowed to do with their body, that old chestnut.)

This basically Gay Cake Bullshit 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Denying services to a portion of society because "muh morals" it's totally ethical!

Thaluikhain:

CheetoDust:
If you, as a doctor, just straight up refuse to treat an LGBT person full stop because of your Christian views then fuck you, you're not a Christian and you shouldn't be a doctor.

Shouldn't be a doctor, sure, but unfortunately being a Christian covers all sorts of attitudes.

I disagree. All sorts of assholes may call themselves Christians but refusing to help someone because you don't like them or even find them morally wrong is explicitly against Christ's words. He was pretty goddamned clear on this stuff. Course he was also pretty clear on how he felt about the rich and the meek but it looks like a lot of these dipshits got what he said about those two mixed up.

CheetoDust:

Thaluikhain:

CheetoDust:
If you, as a doctor, just straight up refuse to treat an LGBT person full stop because of your Christian views then fuck you, you're not a Christian and you shouldn't be a doctor.

Shouldn't be a doctor, sure, but unfortunately being a Christian covers all sorts of attitudes.

I disagree. All sorts of assholes may call themselves Christians but refusing to help someone because you don't like them or even find them morally wrong is explicitly against Christ's words. He was pretty goddamned clear on this stuff. Course he was also pretty clear on how he felt about the rich and the meek but it looks like a lot of these dipshits got what he said about those two mixed up.

Well considering the overwhelming support Trump has from evangelical protestant groups, as well as pastors that claim he's working for their god, this isn't really convincing for those of us who have to live with these religiously-backed laws and endorsements.

NemotheElvenPanda:

CheetoDust:

Thaluikhain:

Shouldn't be a doctor, sure, but unfortunately being a Christian covers all sorts of attitudes.

I disagree. All sorts of assholes may call themselves Christians but refusing to help someone because you don't like them or even find them morally wrong is explicitly against Christ's words. He was pretty goddamned clear on this stuff. Course he was also pretty clear on how he felt about the rich and the meek but it looks like a lot of these dipshits got what he said about those two mixed up.

Well considering the overwhelming support Trump has from evangelical protestant groups, as well as pastors that claim he's working for their god, this isn't really convincing for those of us who have to live with these religiously-backed laws and endorsements.

And a lot of cunts have blown themselves up while screaming Allah's name. These assholes can call themselves Christian all they want but they aren't. Just like if someone says they're an atheist but then says there's definitely some kind of god they fall at the first hurdle... Because they're retarded, bastards or both.

CheetoDust:

NemotheElvenPanda:

CheetoDust:
I disagree. All sorts of assholes may call themselves Christians but refusing to help someone because you don't like them or even find them morally wrong is explicitly against Christ's words. He was pretty goddamned clear on this stuff. Course he was also pretty clear on how he felt about the rich and the meek but it looks like a lot of these dipshits got what he said about those two mixed up.

Well considering the overwhelming support Trump has from evangelical protestant groups, as well as pastors that claim he's working for their god, this isn't really convincing for those of us who have to live with these religiously-backed laws and endorsements.

And a lot of cunts have blown themselves up while screaming Allah's name. These assholes can call themselves Christian all they want but they aren't. Just like if someone says they're an atheist but then says there's definitely some kind of god they fall at the first hurdle... Because they're retarded, bastards or both.

A lot of Christians, it seems, skip over the "Love thy neighbor" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged" parts and zoom in on the "X, Y, and Z are sins, and therefore bad".

Pretty sad when it is considered somewhat forward-thinking for a church to say "Homosexuality is a sin, but homosexuals are just like everyone else, so pity them, for they know not what they do," compared to "Burn teh gheys!"

CheetoDust:

NemotheElvenPanda:

CheetoDust:
I disagree. All sorts of assholes may call themselves Christians but refusing to help someone because you don't like them or even find them morally wrong is explicitly against Christ's words. He was pretty goddamned clear on this stuff. Course he was also pretty clear on how he felt about the rich and the meek but it looks like a lot of these dipshits got what he said about those two mixed up.

Well considering the overwhelming support Trump has from evangelical protestant groups, as well as pastors that claim he's working for their god, this isn't really convincing for those of us who have to live with these religiously-backed laws and endorsements.

And a lot of cunts have blown themselves up while screaming Allah's name. These assholes can call themselves Christian all they want but they aren't. Just like if someone says they're an atheist but then says there's definitely some kind of god they fall at the first hurdle... Because they're retarded, bastards or both.

I don't disagree, but the facts remain that Trump's biggest supports are evangelical protestant Christians. A lot of people are convinced that they are doing Jesus' work, and people like me, non-Christians and LGBT+, are going to and are feeling the brunt of these beliefs.

erttheking:
snip

Agema:
snip

Gethsemani:
snip

Right, to summarise my response:
- Regarding the "it's their job" argument, I don't know the exact wording of contracts. But I know for sure that mine doesn't specify all tasks that I am required to undertake.
- Regarding the ethical framework - sure, you have a broad framework. That's standard. But to apply it to individual situations requires a level of interpretation.
- There is no reason why you cannot make concessions for individual staff members on the condition that the practice-holder ensures a set range of procedures. You can have this whole thing be a win-win scenario, this is not a bipolar issue. Setting more stringent requirements on the company than the individual is only logical.

P.S. We disagree. Okay, cool. I can see your arguments, and I respect them. I just weigh the balance differently. Can we please keep this a civil thread, accept that there are legitimate issues both sides, and then go on our ways?

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
snip

Agema:
snip

Gethsemani:
snip

Right, to summarise my response:
- Regarding the "it's their job" argument, I don't know the exact wording of contracts. But I know for sure that mine doesn't specify all tasks that I am required to undertake.
- Regarding the ethical framework - sure, you have a broad framework. That's standard. But to apply it to individual situations requires a level of interpretation.
- There is no reason why you cannot make concessions for individual staff members on the condition that the practice-holder ensures a set range of procedures. You can have this whole thing be a win-win scenario, this is not a bipolar issue. Setting more stringent requirements on the company than the individual is only logical.

P.S. We disagree. Okay, cool. I can see your arguments, and I respect them. I just weigh the balance differently. Can we please keep this a civil thread, accept that there are legitimate issues both sides, and then go on our ways?

Are you a doctor? I somehow doubt that your job has as many lives on the lines as a doctor. It's a whole other level man. Also, Gethsemani WORKS in health.

And here's the interpretation that needs to be applied. How do we help the patient as much as possible? Because that's kind of how being a health care worker works. The needs of the patient come first. The worker's feelings and moral view points come second. If the worker lets their feelings and moral view get in the way of helping a patient, they officially suck as a health care worker.

Yes, there is a reason why you cannot make concessions for individual staff members. It's their job and you can't just have someone decide they don't feel like doing their job. Would you apply this logic to anywhere else? Would you say that a police officer doesn't have to respond to a shooting because its against their religious views to kill someone? Would you say that a firefighter shouldn't have to respond to a fire on Sunday and they want to keep the sabbath holy? No you wouldn't, you'd tell them to get out there and do their job or they're fired.

No, we cannot accept that there are legitimate issues on both sides. This is an American health issue that has been slammed by both Americans and people who work in the field of health. We have our finger a lot closer to the pulse than you do, and we see nothing good about this. Not a single thing. Unless you count the right to discriminate as something good, which very few of us do. There being two sides to an argument does not automatically mean both sides have merit.

image

erttheking:
No, we cannot accept that there are legitimate issues on both sides.

R&P in a nutshell, these days.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here