law makes it legal for atheist doctors and nurses to refuse care (Christian, Christ)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While the situation here may be fictional, the consequences of many of these types of laws is not. It was a few years ago that my parents had a chance to vote on a few laws similar to this. One vote was a law to bring god back into the classroom it allowed for the reading of the Pledge of Allegiance and then a Prayer led by the Principal, Vice, or a teacher. Children not of that faith would be allowed to leave the room and could come back in after the religion part was over.
I asked my dad about the possibility of living in a predominantly Muslim school. Our where I live, there is a block that is predominantly Muslim. And there are quite a few teachers in the public school from that area. Anyway, I asked if they chose to read and pray from the Quran do you think it would be right for my kids to have to do that. He said that he was pretty sure that the law only applied to Christians and started with a bunch of stuff about how that would be illegal and honestly could not see how that could happen even today in pockets of the U.S.
So, they will not bake a cake? Nor will they provide health care for non-believers?
What happens when the law supports the other side?
The law allows medical staff to refuse treatment to members of the LGBQT community on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs. It would serve to reason this would also pertain to atheist doctors and nurses who could refuse to treat patients who are religious.
It seem we have had this type of argument before. If it legal to refuse care, then it is a choice for the doctor, whether atheist or not. If it isn't hegal, a compromise could be made where someone else might be found.
I rather suspect the law would expect them to provide the treatment, but not if they were putting themselves at risk. Otherwise they should do their job or give it up.
And frankly I can't see any reason why atheist doctors woudl refuse care to anyone if it didn't seriously threaten their own life.
I can imagine some religious doctors refusing on some religious pretext.
It seem we have had this type of argument before. If it legal to refuse care, then it is a choice for the doctor, whether atheist or not. If it isn't hegal, a compromise could be made where someone else might be found.
I rather suspect the law would expect them to provide the treatment, but not if they were putting themselves at risk. Otherwise they should do their job or give it up.
And frankly I can't see any reason why atheist doctors woudl refuse care to anyone if it didn't seriously threaten their own life.
I can imagine some religious doctors refusing on some religious pretext.
Well, as the two chest cutters I mentioned, they received AIDS from infected patients after getting their hand nicked by cut bones through their gloves in the patient's blood. Their lives were put in jeopardy, and at that time, their careers suffered because of it as well, because who wanted a heart surgeon opening them up and sticking their hands in their body, who had AIDS, and what hospital wants to be liable for such a thing happening? Same with the dentist's situation.
And I should mention that the CDC said at that time that AIDS was not transferable through saliva. That was not true exactly, because we have miniscule amounts of blood in our mouth and in our saliva from just eating, brushing teeth, ect., and so it is possible to get it in an open area from saliva, and with the newer tests it's a lot easier to detect HIV in saliva than it used to be. And another "fun" fact: there is a 20% window of opportunity for it to be in the blood of a transfusion, undetected.
There are more than just moral and religious issues surrounding these things, is my point. Peace
Well, as the two chest cutters I mentioned, they received AIDS from infected patients after getting their hand nicked by cut bones through their gloves in the patient's blood. Their lives were put in jeopardy, and at that time, their careers suffered because of it as well, because who wanted a heart surgeon opening them up and sticking their hands in their body, who had AIDS, and what hospital wants to be liable for such a thing happening? Same with the dentist's situation.
And I should mention that the CDC said at that time that AIDS was not transferable through saliva. That was not true exactly, because we have miniscule amounts of blood in our mouth and in our saliva from just eating, brushing teeth, ect., and so it is possible to get it in an open area from saliva, and with the newer tests it's a lot easier to detect HIV in saliva than it used to be. And another "fun" fact: there is a 20% window of opportunity for it to be in the blood of a transfusion, undetected.
There are more than just moral and religious issues surrounding these things, is my point. Peace
Well, as the two chest cutters I mentioned, they received AIDS from infected patients after getting their hand nicked by cut bones through their gloves in the patient's blood. Their lives were put in jeopardy, and at that time, their careers suffered because of it as well, because who wanted a heart surgeon opening them up and sticking their hands in their body, who had AIDS, and what hospital wants to be liable for such a thing happening? Same with the dentist's situation.
And I should mention that the CDC said at that time that AIDS was not transferable through saliva. That was not true exactly, because we have miniscule amounts of blood in our mouth and in our saliva from just eating, brushing teeth, ect., and so it is possible to get it in an open area from saliva, and with the newer tests it's a lot easier to detect HIV in saliva than it used to be. And another "fun" fact: there is a 20% window of opportunity for it to be in the blood of a transfusion, undetected.
There are more than just moral and religious issues surrounding these things, is my point. Peace
Yes, and there would be (I think I already said this) valid reasons to refuse to carry out their duties, just as there ought to be with people in any work where they are exposed to danger. The solution than is to find a way of making it safe for them to do the job.
It is a totally different matter from refusing to do a job because of religious scruples, because the only way to get rid of religious scruples is to get rid of the religion.
Well, as the two chest cutters I mentioned, they received AIDS from infected patients after getting their hand nicked by cut bones through their gloves in the patient's blood. Their lives were put in jeopardy, and at that time, their careers suffered because of it as well, because who wanted a heart surgeon opening them up and sticking their hands in their body, who had AIDS, and what hospital wants to be liable for such a thing happening? Same with the dentist's situation.
And I should mention that the CDC said at that time that AIDS was not transferable through saliva. That was not true exactly, because we have miniscule amounts of blood in our mouth and in our saliva from just eating, brushing teeth, ect., and so it is possible to get it in an open area from saliva, and with the newer tests it's a lot easier to detect HIV in saliva than it used to be. And another "fun" fact: there is a 20% window of opportunity for it to be in the blood of a transfusion, undetected.
There are more than just moral and religious issues surrounding these things, is my point. Peace
One does not receive AIDS, one can contract HIV, which is NOT AIDS...
And do you know that as a teacher, I have no right to know if any of my students are positive HIV, HEPATITIS, or any other communicable disease.
It is called universal precaution...and if those bone cutters were not supposed to be exposed to HOV, would their god have not protected them???
HIV is NOT transferable via saliva...where did you get your Ph.D. in VIROLOGY?? Trump University?
One does not receive AIDS, one can contract HIV, which is NOT AIDS...
And do you know that as a teacher, I have no right to know if any of my students are positive HIV, HEPATITIS, or any other communicable disease.
It is called universal precaution...and if those bone cutters were not supposed to be exposed to HOV, would their god have not protected them???
HIV is NOT transferable via saliva...where did you get your Ph.D. in VIROLOGY?? Trump University?
If I say AIDS, I think it's understood that means the virus that causes it, and made them receive it.
WHAT is called universal precaution? You didn't mention it's meaning at all here, though I know it and used practiced it. And what has "their" G-d got to do with what I said, given how I didn't know and therefore mention if they were even Christian or not? Assume much?
HIV IS transferable in saliva via the blood in saliva sometimes. So you can split hairs and say it's not transferable via saliva, but if that blood was IN the saliva and you have a person with open cuts in their mouth receiving it, then yes they received HIV from saliva, because it's blood to blood contact. Common sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
