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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

NemotheElvenPanda:

Catnip1024:

Gethsemani:
Never been in the armed forces I take it? I've had friends who did tours in Afghanistan as support personnel, which didn't stop command from putting them as riflemen in patrolling squads when gaps needed to be fulfilled. They could complain, but they had absolutely no recourse but to grab their rifle and get in the van or face court martial for disobeying a lawful order. The point is that if you sign up for the armed forces, in peacetime or not, you can reasonably expect to be placed in a combat zone, some times as an active combatant or right next to the combat (as in combat medics) as part of your job description. Everyone who joins the armed forces knows this.

And I did point out that the rules are different for military operations. Which made the whole comparison flawed from the get go. Comparisons generally are, to be fair. Medical work is very different from most other streams to begin with.

But as an aside, my mother has worked in an emergency medical ward for the last 15 years and both she and her co-workers have assisted in numerous controlled terminations of irrecoverable patients. Those patients that obviously won't survive and where next of kin agrees that it is more humane to stop the ventilator or administer large doses of anesthetics instead of waiting for what might be days for the patients body to give in. This is not uncommon and pretty much any nurse or doctor who works in somatic care for an extended period of time will have to perform the act or prescribe it. It is a part of the job and our ethical codes makes it an unproblematic (if stressful) work task.

There is a difference between a controlled termination and an assisted suicide. One is a person due to die imminently who you are purely saving further pain, with little time being taken from them. The other is generally someone with many years potentially left, who personally believes their quality of life to be insufficient to be worth it. Which may go against the recommendations of a doctor, and possibly even the wishes of their family.

So who would you "pass off" Literally Josef Stalin to? Send him across the country to the one psychiatrist who things he did nothing wrong? That's unethical and unlawful in way too many ways to list. I mean, I've cared for mothers who have killed their infant babies. Do I think it is a despicable act? Yes. Did I, or any of my co-workers, allow that to get in the way of the fact that the patient was under our care? No, because we had a job to do and a professional obligation to do it.

Thing is, the law as phrased doesn't mention totalitarian dictators. Or criminals. The wording clearly referred to particular procedures / services. Which yes, can single out groups based on the service, but is much easier to work around than long-dead dictators.

This is not about abortion or trans-gender surgery for me, it is about the broader perspective that every single person in need of health care should never have to worry about health care personnel refusing to help them because the staff has moral objections to something with the patient.

And it isn't about that for me either. It's about making a little leeway for workers at virtually no expense to the patient. It's not necessarily something I would have thought of as being a great idea, but the people rabidly against it are kind of overlooking the various nuances. It isn't purely about LGBT rights, it isn't purely screwing people over.

I mean, sure, the perfect outcome would be everybody being happy doing everything. But people are by nature more or less happy doing different things, and that does distort job performance.

You don't get to place personal beliefs before your job when it involves someone's life. It's that simple. I don't understand how this needs to be spelled out to you multiple times.

I stopped posting in the thread because it's come down to "I don't care if it's my job. Muh feelz is more important than other people's lives."

NemotheElvenPanda:
You don't get to place personal beliefs before your job when it involves someone's life. It's that simple. I don't understand how this needs to be spelled out to you multiple times.

Not every single operation is life or death. Most can be happily put back the extra day or two required to reallocate the staff.

I disagree with your assumption. I don't see how this needs to be spelt out to you so many times. I made my position clear, I am happy for people to disagree with it, but that is it. Reiterating the same sentiment with countless misjudged comparisons isn't going to change my mind.

Catnip1024:

NemotheElvenPanda:
You don't get to place personal beliefs before your job when it involves someone's life. It's that simple. I don't understand how this needs to be spelled out to you multiple times.

Not every single operation is life or death. Most can be happily put back the extra day or two required to reallocate the staff.

I disagree with your assumption. I don't see how this needs to be spelt out to you so many times. I made my position clear, I am happy for people to disagree with it, but that is it. Reiterating the same sentiment with countless misjudged comparisons isn't going to change my mind.

Have you ever been deferred or had a surgery put on hold before? It's not only not fun, but also expensive, sometimes painful, and incredibly inconvenient, especially if you have a job and you only get so many days off. You're completely forgetting the PATIENT'S situation here, the situation that in most high-quality healthcare systems gets priority over the surgeon's....because that's why the healthcare system is a thing that exists to start with. To help people. If it's not helping people, it's a bad system. If you're not helping patients, you're part of the problem.

And your position is wrong. Not controversial, not contrary, just wrong. If a doctor isn't going to help a patient for religious reasons, they don't deserve to be a doctor. Period. If your religion is opposed to helping gay people, or performing abortion, or whatever, then don't go into fields where you're required by law and practice to do. This would be like me, a Buddhist, choosing to go into military service and asking to not shoot people on the grounds of religious practice. That would land me in serious legal trouble.

NemotheElvenPanda:
And your position is wrong.

Nah, bud. Ethics doesn't work like that. Many positions are valid, depending how you score things. It's only wrong if you can't justify it.

Catnip1024:

NemotheElvenPanda:
And your position is wrong.

Nah, bud. Ethics doesn't work like that. Many positions are valid, depending how you score things. It's only wrong if you can't justify it.

Catnip1024:

NemotheElvenPanda:
And your position is wrong.

Nah, bud. Ethics doesn't work like that. Many positions are valid, depending how you score things. It's only wrong if you can't justify it.

And it's unethical to not serve patients you're required to care for. There's no justification for malpractice due to personal beliefs.

Catnip1024:

NemotheElvenPanda:
And your position is wrong.

Nah, bud. Ethics doesn't work like that. Many positions are valid, depending how you score things. It's only wrong if you can't justify it.

So you are admitting you're wrong, considering you utterly failed to justify this world view.

You've been presented with evidence in the form of a history of "religious freedoms" being used to discriminate, people who are utterly reliant on religious hospitals which would entirely turn some people away, people having died from this sort of thing, and a health care worker telling you how this would be a betrayal of what the profession stands for, and the only defense you have is "muh feelz." You've failed to address counter arguments. "Not every procedure is life threatening" does not address that people would die from this. If anything, it implies you don't care.

A professional told you you were wrong and you refused to admit it. This isn't you justifying an ethical viewpoint. It's you saying the sky is pink and that we can't prove you wrong, when we have. Also it feels like you defending or downplaying Trump doing shitty things that hurt people. Again.

erttheking:
So you are admitting you?re wrong, considering you utterly failed to justify this world view.

Actually, I did justify my position. You just grossly oversimplify and misrepresent what has been said. I proposed a theoretical situation which would leave everyone at least as well off as now. You just seem determined to overlook it.

The problem here is that rather than having a discussion on professional ethics or workplace rights, you try to make everything an accusation of LGBT genocide.

NemotheElvenPanda:
And it's unethical to not serve patients you're required to care for. There's no justification for malpractice due to personal beliefs.

If the practice as a whole is still willing to meet the needs of the patient, then the question could be asked as to whether it is better for the patient to be cared for by the members of staff who don't have conscious / subconscious biases. Which is a strand of my argument that I haven't seen any of you try to address yet.

And again, it's ethics. If you believe your position strongly enough, of course you can justify it. Sure, you would be going against the ethical conventions of the industry, but ethics is not black and white.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
So you are admitting you?re wrong, considering you utterly failed to justify this world view.

Actually, I did justify my position. You just grossly oversimplify and misrepresent what has been said. I proposed a theoretical situation which would leave everyone at least as well off as now. You just seem determined to overlook it.

The problem here is that rather than having a discussion on professional ethics or workplace rights, you try to make everything an accusation of LGBT genocide.

NemotheElvenPanda:
And it's unethical to not serve patients you're required to care for. There's no justification for malpractice due to personal beliefs.

If the practice as a whole is still willing to meet the needs of the patient, then the question could be asked as to whether it is better for the patient to be cared for by the members of staff who don't have conscious / subconscious biases. Which is a strand of my argument that I haven't seen any of you try to address yet.

And again, it's ethics. If you believe your position strongly enough, of course you can justify it. Sure, you would be going against the ethical conventions of the industry, but ethics is not black and white.

No, you didn?t. The health care professional told you how you were wrong and you ignored her. This is nothing short of clamping your hands over your ears.

Please tell me when I used the word genocide to describe ANYTHING LGBT related in the past month. I didn?t. So you?re lying about me. In the same post where you basically complain I?m not arguing in good faith. Talk about hypocrisy. And even then, that straw man doesn't remove the history of " religious freedom" being used to discriminate, which you are refusing to acknowledge.

thebobmaster:

CM156:
I know that people are trying to tie this into the whole gay cakes debate but no. Just... no. It's not remotely the same. And this is coming from someone who's more radically anti-abortion than probably anyone else on the forum. I work in the law and it's a violation of my ethical duty to deny a person represenation that I would otherwise be able to provide on the basis of discrimination against some protected class. To wit, I could refuse to represent a person because their case was wrong or it's an area I'm not competent in, but I cannot refuse to represent someone because they're transexual or HIV positive. And I accept that as much as I may disprove of an individuals choices that doesn't give me grounds to deny them representation (No cab-rank rule like UK Solicitors in the USA but my state's bar has an anti-discrimination clause last I checked). And that's the legal field were talking about, which is significantly less life-or-death than your average hospital.

My advice: Compartmentalize your life. If you really hate transexuals and abortion so much, rant about them on /pol/. That's what I do. Or maybe go into a field that doesn't have as many things you morally object to.

While I don't necessarily agree with your opinions, I respect your ability to recognize they have a time and place, and should not interfere with your work, and will always respect your right to hold those beliefs in the same way. *doffs hat*

Thank you. I see people trying to blend this into the gay cake debate (for lack of a better term). But the two aren't remotely on the same level.

I'd like to add that there are several countries where abortion is more restricted than it is in the USA. If one objects to "elective" abortion (again, I don't like the term but that's the best way to describe it) then there's very little stopping one from attempting to move to a nation with more restrictive laws. Most countries allow for medical professionals who want to move from the USA to said country to do so quickly (assuming the doctor has valid credentials and whatnot) due to the shortage of doctors and the general movement of doctors and nurses out of these countries. Sure, you won't become a citizen anytime soon but you will be able to get a residency permit. If your moral convictions are that strong, perhaps a change of venue is whats needed?

CM156:

thebobmaster:

CM156:
I know that people are trying to tie this into the whole gay cakes debate but no. Just... no. It's not remotely the same. And this is coming from someone who's more radically anti-abortion than probably anyone else on the forum. I work in the law and it's a violation of my ethical duty to deny a person represenation that I would otherwise be able to provide on the basis of discrimination against some protected class. To wit, I could refuse to represent a person because their case was wrong or it's an area I'm not competent in, but I cannot refuse to represent someone because they're transexual or HIV positive. And I accept that as much as I may disprove of an individuals choices that doesn't give me grounds to deny them representation (No cab-rank rule like UK Solicitors in the USA but my state's bar has an anti-discrimination clause last I checked). And that's the legal field were talking about, which is significantly less life-or-death than your average hospital.

My advice: Compartmentalize your life. If you really hate transexuals and abortion so much, rant about them on /pol/. That's what I do. Or maybe go into a field that doesn't have as many things you morally object to.

While I don't necessarily agree with your opinions, I respect your ability to recognize they have a time and place, and should not interfere with your work, and will always respect your right to hold those beliefs in the same way. *doffs hat*

Thank you. I see people trying to blend this into the gay cake debate (for lack of a better term). But the two aren't remotely on the same level.

I'd like to add that there are several countries where abortion is more restricted than it is in the USA. If one objects to "elective" abortion (again, I don't like the term but that's the best way to describe it) then there's very little stopping one from attempting to move to a nation with more restrictive laws. Most countries allow for medical professionals who want to move from the USA to said country to do so quickly (assuming the doctor has valid credentials and whatnot) due to the shortage of doctors and the general movement of doctors and nurses out of these countries. Sure, you won't become a citizen anytime soon but you will be able to get a residency permit. If your moral convictions are that strong, perhaps a change of venue is whats needed?

Interesting. I didn't know doctors could move that freely. I know that for me, as a pharmacy technician, my licensing is only good in California. If I were to even move to another state, I'd have to re-apply, going through the certification process again.

erttheking:
The health care professional told you how you were wrong and you ignored her.

A health care professional is not the be all and end all on health care ethics. I respect that Gethsemani's opinion comes from the field, and she added some pertinent points. Which illuminate the current scenario, but don't actual change the fact that my scoring matrix on what is an appropriate scenario is different to yours.

I disagree with you. We both get that. Why do you have to be so insistent on being right in what is at heart an ethical situation.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
The health care professional told you how you were wrong and you ignored her.

A health care professional is not the be all and end all on health care ethics. I respect that Gethsemani's opinion comes from the field, and she added some pertinent points. Which illuminate the current scenario, but don't actual change the fact that my scoring matrix on what is an appropriate scenario is different to yours.

I disagree with you. We both get that. Why do you have to be so insistent on being right in what is at heart an ethical situation.

She?s a shit load more of an authority on the subject than you, the guy with zero experience arguing in favor of a total overhaul of medical ethics despite the disapproval of people who actually know what they?re talking about. As such ?your scoring matrix? counts for little, because you?re advocating for a total medical ethics overall, spitting on what medicine used to stand for, and the only argument you have is fee fees and ignoring arguments. People dying from lack of care, where does that fit on your little matrix?

I find the people you defend to be reprehensible. They?ve caused people to die, tell women what they can do with their bodies, discriminate against the LGBT community and contribute to their high suicide rate. And you defend them, ignore the history of discrimination in this country, ignore arguments, lie about the people you argue with, ignore people more informed than you, and try to pass it all off as a simple difference of opinion? And you ask why I?m not backing down? Fuck that noise, that?s why. Google Tyra Hunter for a little more if you want.

thebobmaster:

CM156:

thebobmaster:

While I don't necessarily agree with your opinions, I respect your ability to recognize they have a time and place, and should not interfere with your work, and will always respect your right to hold those beliefs in the same way. *doffs hat*

Thank you. I see people trying to blend this into the gay cake debate (for lack of a better term). But the two aren't remotely on the same level.

I'd like to add that there are several countries where abortion is more restricted than it is in the USA. If one objects to "elective" abortion (again, I don't like the term but that's the best way to describe it) then there's very little stopping one from attempting to move to a nation with more restrictive laws. Most countries allow for medical professionals who want to move from the USA to said country to do so quickly (assuming the doctor has valid credentials and whatnot) due to the shortage of doctors and the general movement of doctors and nurses out of these countries. Sure, you won't become a citizen anytime soon but you will be able to get a residency permit. If your moral convictions are that strong, perhaps a change of venue is whats needed?

Interesting. I didn't know doctors could move that freely. I know that for me, as a pharmacy technician, my licensing is only good in California. If I were to even move to another state, I'd have to re-apply, going through the certification process again.

Oh, there's of course paperwork you have to do, but since nations want doctors so much they're willing to go to great lengths. One of the overarching requirements is to have a job lined up (in most countries) and it's very easy to find hospitals looking to hire experienced doctors.

EDIT: Should clarify: I'm not an immigration attorney and YMMV depending on jurisdiction

Catnip1024:
There is a difference between a controlled termination and an assisted suicide. One is a person due to die imminently who you are purely saving further pain, with little time being taken from them. The other is generally someone with many years potentially left, who personally believes their quality of life to be insufficient to be worth it. Which may go against the recommendations of a doctor, and possibly even the wishes of their family.

Except that assisted suicide is only advocated towards those who are terminally ill who don't want to see their illness to its - usually agonizing and crippling - end. We're talking life expectancies of a few years after diagnosis at best. They want to end their lives on their terms while they're still capable of being themselves, before their illness robs them of their ability to do the things they love and be with the people they care about.

It's not about "Oh I think my quality of life is bad so I'll just kill myself" it's "I'm going to die from this illness, it will rob me of my ability to function, and that death will be painful and agonizing. I don't want my family and friends to watch me slowly deteriorate, I don't want to suffer. I am going to fulfill my last desires and end my life so I can die with some dignity, and my loved ones don't have to suffer and they can see me off while I'm still myself." That's why the foundation that's advocating for assisted suicide to be legal for those with terminal illnesses is called the Death with Dignity National Center.

It is an elective procedure, which means a person seeking assisted suicide would have to specifically ask for it. It would not be against the recommendations of a doctor, primarily because assisted suicide still isn't legal in the majority of the US yet, and a doctor's primary concern is their patient, the family does not determine what kind of care a patient gets unless that patient is unable to make these decisions themselves, then that decision falls to whoever has power of attorney.

Gethsemani:

The Lunatic:

Gethsemani:

Let's put this into perspective: Would you say it is alright for a soldier to refuse combat tours?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss

Yes. In fact, I'd say it makes them pretty fucking brave for the most part.

Do note that Doss did not refuse combat service, only armed service. That's a significant difference.

You said "Soldier". There's plenty of non-combat roles for soldiers. Plenty of people who opposed violence can be found having served as soldiers during many wars and in a lot of cases, with distinction.

Also, there's more to being a doctor than specifically abortion and so on. Expecting doctors to leave their jobs because some day somebody might force them to take what they deem to be a life is pretty bizarre.

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.

Actually, apparently federaly you do have the right to enter a profession while refusing to perform parts of your job.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mairead-mcardle/eeoc-awards-240k-muslim-truck-drivers-fired-refusing-deliver-alcohol

The Lunatic:

You said "Soldier". There's plenty of non-combat roles for soldiers. Plenty of people who opposed violence can be found having served as soldiers during many wars and in a lot of cases, with distinction.

The term "combat tour" refers to a tour of duty in a place where active combat takes place. Being involved in combat does not mean you have to use a weapon in anger. You are arguing semantics that literally doesn't matter, because my point was that if you join the army willingly you know being deployed to war zones comes with the job.

The Lunatic:
Also, there's more to being a doctor than specifically abortion and so on.

And here's where you prove that you haven't read this thread at all. I have pointed this out (do anything but ob/gyn if you don't like abortions), as have Agema and a bunch of other posters. I mean I said so in the first post of mine you quoted. Look I am still frustrated from our last exchange, so if all you are going to do is come in and argue semantics that doesn't matter and re-state arguments that have already been addressed because you don't care to keep up with the thread, don't bother.

Warhound:

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.

Actually, apparently federaly you do have the right to enter a profession while refusing to perform parts of your job.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mairead-mcardle/eeoc-awards-240k-muslim-truck-drivers-fired-refusing-deliver-alcohol

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so

If your hospital has enough OB/GYNs that you, specifically, would never have to perform an abortion, that's already fine. If your hospital has enough staff that you, personally, will never have to treat a trans person, then that's already fine.

If either of those situations comes up and your hospital doesn't have enough staff to cover it without you getting involved...well, I got bad news for you, sparky. Yer goin in.

And that is without noting the obvious differences between healthcare/hospitals and trucking companies. The later usually doesn't have lives hanging in the balance.

altnameJag:

Warhound:

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.

Actually, apparently federaly you do have the right to enter a profession while refusing to perform parts of your job.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mairead-mcardle/eeoc-awards-240k-muslim-truck-drivers-fired-refusing-deliver-alcohol

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so

If your hospital has enough OB/GYNs that you, specifically, would never have to perform an abortion, that's already fine. If your hospital has enough staff that you, personally, will never have to treat a trans person, then that's already fine.

If either of those situations comes up and your hospital doesn't have enough staff to cover it without you getting involved...well, I got bad news for you, sparky. Yer goin in.

And that is without noting the obvious differences between healthcare/hospitals and trucking companies. The later usually doesn't have lives hanging in the balance.

I agree, if there are the staff on hand (or immediately nearby) then it totally should be the persons choice and the work/customer should accommodate that, but if it is life or death or super inconvenient (Like not sending a person 300 miles) then yeah, shuddup and do the job.

Catnip1024:
I disagree with you. We both get that. Why do you have to be so insistent on being right in what is at heart an ethical situation.

Probably because according to medical ethics, you are wrong.

You're effectively disagreeing with medical ethics themselves, undermining or diluting the principle that the wellbeing of the patient is the primary concern of a healthcare professional.

In one sense, you are therefore setting yourself against thousands of years of development of practice and philosophy, and in another arguing to downgrade the importance of the central function of healthcare. So for all your right to hold that view, from a position of rational justification you are in quite a weak place.

Agema:
So for all your right to hold that view, from a position of rational justification you are in quite a weak place.

But I do have the right to hold that view. Thank you.

And ultimately, I don't get why people think it's so important to convince me otherwise. I don't set medical policy.

Catnip1024:

Agema:
So for all your right to hold that view, from a position of rational justification you are in quite a weak place.

But I do have the right to hold that view. Thank you.

And ultimately, I don't get why people think it's so important to convince me otherwise. I don't set medical policy.

People generally don't like to let viewpoints that are utterly morally wrong go unchallenged. Otherwise the person holding that viewpoint might find an environment to convince themselves that their utterly wrong moral viewpoints are justified. When they aren't.

So yeah, you do have the right to hold that view. Just as we have the right to utterly tear it apart for all the countless flaws it has.

Catnip1024:

Agema:
So for all your right to hold that view, from a position of rational justification you are in quite a weak place.

But I do have the right to hold that view. Thank you.

Not sure what you're trying to do with this comment other than sounding smug. Having an opinion isn't really something of which to be proud; like an opinion, everyone has an asshole, but that doesn't mean some people's aren't broken, diseased, and messed up.

Catnip1024:

And ultimately, I don't get why people think it's so important to convince me otherwise.

We're all equally confused why you're trying to convince us that a doctor should be allowed to let an LGBT patient die without care for no reason other than the physician not liking "the evil homosexuals and their agenda."

Catnip1024:

I don't set medical policy.

No, but you are publicly supporting this policy and arguing in its favor.

Catnip1024:
And ultimately, I don't get why people think it's so important to convince me otherwise. I don't set medical policy.

Actually, albeit in a very small way, yes you do set medical policy.

As you note, medical ethics are not entirely down to medical professionals. In practice, sufficient general societal pressure would likely end in a change to medical ethics. The law, for instance, can supercede medical ethics: were the government to impose practices contrary to good medical ethics, it would compel those "bad" practices to occur.

This being a democracy and you a voter, or simply as a member of society, your opinion matters inherently, plus any capacity to influence others. Every person who accepts degradation of standards is one more person towards degradation of standards being able to occur. They're all worth trying to convince, otherwise one day you blink and realise someone's scrapped the standards you believe in.

I just want to say that I find it so odd that many people in the atheist/skeptic community support Trump or at least tacitly tolerate the alternative right.

If you start from the position that organized religion is potentially dangerous and harmful to society then supporting the Republican seems like an odd place to end up.

renegade7:
I just want to say that I find it so odd that many people in the atheist/skeptic community support Trump or at least tacitly tolerate the alternative right.

If you start from the position that organized religion is potentially dangerous and harmful to society then supporting the Republican seems like an odd place to end up.

Part of it is due to that a lot of the skeptic community's beef with social justice and progress, especially feminism, because reasons. If you look at Thunderfoot's, Amazing Atheist's, or LaciGreen's upload history, there's an obvious ideological shift away from attacking religion when it's being repressive towards women and LGBT+ people, to suddenly being repressive towards women and LGBT+ people themselves.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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