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.
I understand that the issue is not new, even this specific bullet point of the issue. Personally, I think conscientious objectors are silly and ignorant. Going into a job, you know if it has duties/tasks that will run counter to one's delicate sensibilities. If those duties/tasks are so heinous, don't take that freaking job. Do something that allows you to cling to those principles while not having an adverse effect on either your employer or their customers.
But I am also a dyed in the wool champion of people retaining their natural, individual rights, one of which is the freedom of voluntary association. In a proper world where that freedom is unrestricted, the conscientious objector would be free to not associate with someone they find distasteful, and their employer would be free to not associate with them for being goofballs who cost them business. In such a world, the problem is solved without the need for government.
All this rule amounts to is government giving employees one more way to shirk doing work, with employers being able to do nothing about it. Such rules to mischief and abuse, always and everywhere.
My issue with your ideal is that in the case of a doctor denying care to a patient, the doctor is violating the rights of the patient. You see, your or anyone's right is not a right if it infringes on the rights of another. In this case, the right to medical care. Of course, if a person goes to an ER for plastic surgery then of course this person will be denied and that is ok. I think many here do not understand the distinction.
Its just part and parcel of having Trump Derangement Syndrome. It might be incurable.
This wouldn't apply to an emergency medicine setting. It is directed primarily at non-medical procedures, the doing of which actually violate the Hippocratic oath of "do no harm".
I think its a wobbler with regards to the assisted suicide laws. Many medical providers feel very strongly that helping terminally ill patients avoid horrific suffering is in fact a doctor's duty, with a long tradition of palliative care and euthanasia in the literature, throughout history.
These are not vague and are fairly specific. The references to "specific medical procedures" with examples of such procedures.
Those are usually undertaken out of medical necessity and to correct the malfunction or malformation of an organ or organ system. So that excludes procedures such as sex-change operations (in the absence of true sexual dimorphism), elective abortions, and assisted suicide (in the absence of a terminal illness certain to cause suffering and death within a short timeframe).
Its really just the right not to associate with people you don't like, or whose behaviors you don't approve of, or which makes you uncomfortable. We all have this right.
The government cannot compel you into association or contract with others.
Am sorry, but no; we're not talking about a private group such as the Boy Scouts that are "entitled" to exclude those they do not want. But healthcare professionals charged with serving the *PUBLIC*.
You do realize both historically and still today there is no shortage of doctors, nurses, and others in healthcare that have issues with a vast and bewildering array of demographics; African-Americans, blacks, Latino/Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, LGBT, and so forth. For the record it goes both ways; that is you have AA or black nurses/healthcare professionals who aren't that keen on whites and or various other groups.
It is foolish and extremely naïve to believe just because someone becomes say a physician or nurse they are automatically altruistic and ecumenical, because it just is not true.
If you are a professional nurse your job is to care for patients as assigned, not pick and choose based upon prejudices and or biases. Same goes for doctors and everyone else. Of course doctors have the luxury of setting up private practices and thus can attempt to get round things. But they are still even then subject to the same anti-discriminatory laws as everyone else. But if a doctor is an employee of a hospital/healthcare network he or she falls under the same rules as everyone else; they take patients as assigned or they come unless there is a good reason otherwise.
There is nothing to answer. You're living in your own little world where the ability to not discriminate against someone is somehow a slight against you.
I believe everyone agrees with him on that point. Or at least everyone who thinks rape should be illegal.
Rape laws are premised on the belief that it is actually much worse than a mere "slight" against women (and men) if they are not allowed to discriminate against people they don't want to have sex with.
No one. And no one is forcing anyone to open a bakery, either. But everyone has to make a living somehow, and your intolerance of diversity can be applied equally to every occupation until everyone you disagree with starves to death.
"A disturbing new report from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and MergerWatch, “Health Care Denied,” finds that one in six hospitals in the U.S. are operated in accordance with Catholic religious rules, known as the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs).
Why is that more disturbing than the fact that 5 out of 6 are not? Do they all have to do it your way? So much for diversity and tolerance!
No one. And no one is forcing anyone to open a bakery, either. But everyone has to make a living somehow, and your intolerance of diversity can be applied equally to every occupation until everyone you disagree with starves to death.
Live and let live.
Yes. Take your own advice. Life will be much easier.
Essentially, a healthcare worker can decline to participate in performing abortions and sex change operations.
What is the problem there?
It's like the guy that didn't want to make a cake for the gay couple because their religious conviction led them to believe doing so would represent them as in favor of gay marriage.
The reality is, those that pretend to be so "tolerant" are very intolerant of others beliefs wanting the government to mandate their belief construct onto them.
OP it's called hypocrisy. Congratulations for contributing to the problem.
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.
