posted on May 17, 2004 09:21:56 AM newIn another thread you stated you don't understand why people get in other peoples business...and that what they do behind closed doors should be their own business.
I was referring to sex, Linda. That's S-E-X. Not medical procedures. Unless you think I was referring to doctors having sex with their patients behind closed doors (which I wasn't), that has nothing to do with this thread. Fishing for my words and then twisting them around to fit this thread doesn't work.
posted on May 17, 2004 09:37:58 AM new
cheryl - Your words were quite clear on what you believe they shouldn't be allowed to do. Quite clear.
And so was this statement you made.
I am sick to death of people hiding behind religion in order to keep the bigotry in this country alive and that goes for the man sitting in the white house.
And I'm saying that what you are proposing takes away their right to freely practice their 'trade' according to THEIR OWN religious/moral/ethical personal values.
posted on May 17, 2004 10:05:24 AM newreamond - Oh really? Then you do believe they're indentured servents. They're not....they're free to form their own practices and treat and see exactly who they wish to. Any doctor can tell a patient they don't want to care for them.
They can't refuse based on religious or political grounds. Which has nothing to do with renumeration (getting paid) or indentured servatude.
They knew going in what the licensure entailed.
Their license should be revoked if they refuse treatment based on non-medical grounds.
posted on May 17, 2004 10:13:22 AM newThey knew going in what the licensure entailed.
They did not. Show me where these 'forced' down their throats issues were a required part of practicing medicine. They weren't. These stupid rules/limitations were only recently put into action.
It wasn't being pushed one had to perform abortions IF they wanted to get their medical degree. That's something the left has worked to put into practice.
They didn't have to perform abortions when they didn't want to....those already in the field of OBGYN....and they're being pushed to do so now.
Catholic hospitals never had to allow tubal ligations or vasetomies be perform in their hospitals. etc.
They didn't have to dispense medication that takes a life/stops a pregnancy before....they could just not do it.
It's these changes and more that the liberals have pushed and pushed and they fed up and doing something about it.
It's a control issue with the liberals. If they want/approve of abortions then all doctors/medical staff should be forced to do it upon demand. Well....others feel differently and they're fighting for their own rights.
posted on May 17, 2004 10:19:39 AM new
Catholic hospitals are private, religious hospitals. A far cry from public hospitals.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
My tolerance is legendary, linda. I support all people, regardless of their country of origin, religion or sexual orientation.
Hows your tolerance for 'right wing Republicans'?
sorry off topic, but she purporting to say she is tolerant of all people here, but just asking if political party affiliations are in her legendary tolerance
posted on May 17, 2004 10:23:21 AM new
Linda - Yes or No - are you stating that you condone a disinterested third party being able to force an unwanted pregnancy on a rape victim?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 17, 2004 10:34:35 AM newShow me where these 'forced' down their throats issues were a required part of practicing medicine.
Each and every doctor that practices in a public hospital or hospital accepting federal funds can not refuse treatment based on religious or political reasons. All doctors at one time or another had to practice in a hospital. Interning is part of the licnesure procedure.
Any doctor that refuses treatment for political or religious reasons should have their license revoked.
But it is not just doctors. Pharmicists that work for chain stores are attempting to refuse to dispense medicines based on religious and political grounds. They should be fired - and have been. But the same right wing religious nuts in the legislatures are trying to get bills passed that prevents them from being fired.
Just remember this-- it seems like a great idea to allow licensed professionals to practice based on political and religious grounds rather than medical grounds, that is, until they refuse to practice based on something that you're for.
You would howl if a doctor or hospital refused to operate on your elderly parent because they believed that anyone over 73 years old should not be consuming medical resources.
That is no different than a doctor refusing to perform or refer a patient for an abortion or a pharmicist refusing to dispense a morning after pill.
Everyone has a political axe to grind. Medical decisions must be made based on medical grounds not political and religious beliefs.
It is just like the right wing religious nuts trying to get creation taught in science classes. Next they'll want a bibically correct version of gravity taught in physics class.
posted on May 17, 2004 11:58:23 AM new
What about the people in rural areas of Michigan where health services might not be as readily available? These are the people that will suffer.
As the one poster pointed out, if they go to a tax supported medical school, then they should not be allowed to pick and choose.
This law might also have a backlash. When the atheist doctor sees a patient praying and says, I can't provide this person services. I don't practice religion, it against my personal belief.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 17, 2004 01:29:32 PM new
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
posted on May 17, 2004 06:01:49 PM newLinda - Yes or No - are you stating that you condone a disinterested third party being able to force an unwanted pregnancy on a rape victim?
Not a yes or no answer....First of all I don't consider a medical person a 'disinterested third party'.
and second of all a rape victim would most likely go to an emergency room. And after reviewing this bill again, as passed in their House [MI], they cannot refuse treatment in an emergency situation OR if they are there alone and no one else can take the case from them. Then they must treat the patient even if it's against their beliefs. Least that's the way I'm taking what it says.
But Yes....people have been fired from their jobs...been forced to resign because they don't want to be involved in these procedures.
And this is only the beginning of what health care providers may be required to do in the future. What if our liberal government decides to allow assisted suicide and that is against a person's moral [etc] beliefs? Must a doctor/nurse/etc be forced to participate in that when they don't agree? Not imo. What if cloning or genetic procedures [manipulations] are ok'd by the government? What happens to those who are opposed to those procedures? They're forced to do it anyway? No way. What about being forced to be a part of someone's execution via the drug end of it? And they're against the death penalty?
No....no one should be forced to go against their moral/ethical/religious beliefs. There are enough others that ARE willing....we don't need to force those that oppose it to be a part of it. imho.
There was a federal bill that was presented....so people wouldn't be forced to participate in abortions....but I don't know the status on how it came out...or what happened to it.....and I'm too tired to look right now. In addition to that though, there are a number of other states that are proposing this same type of legislation that the Michigan House has passed.
Just like the some support CO's when it come to the draft and war times. Too many doctors I worked with were against being forced - against their will- to perform abortions....and maybe it was their influence that persuaded me I don't know. But they sure did. Again, to me it's about having the choice. Those who chose to can and those who chose not to shouldn't be forced.
posted on May 17, 2004 06:21:23 PM new
When all the dust settles here in Michigan regarding this, the hospital that has the least amount of services will possibly be the losers. They, (the religious hospitals) will now have even a bigger problem retaining the patient count, once they develop the reputation of turning away certain patients.
I don't know what it is like where anyone else lives, but here in Michigan, the competition for patients is quite fierce.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 17, 2004 06:34:57 PM new
bunni - A google search on 'catholic hospitals doctors forced to' will bring up many sites that speak to the issue of Catholic hospitals merging with other hospitals.....especially in small communities. Then lawsuits are brought and procedures that are against the Catholic doctrine are being forced on them. [Abortions - usually later term ones; artifical insemination between lesbian couples...etc. All of which are against they're beliefs.
--------------------
There's one more url I want to post that I believe is part of the reason we're seeing this type of legislation continuing.....I'll post it in a minute.
posted on May 17, 2004 06:35:32 PM new
::Not a yes or no answer....First of all I don't consider a medical person a 'disinterested third party'. ::
In the case of a rape victim and a possible preganacy they absolutely are unless of course they decide they they are going to foot all expenses associated wit the fetus. They are as much a third party to the situation as the police investigators involved.
::and second of all a rape victim would most likely go to an emergency room. And after reviewing this bill again, as passed in their House [MI], they cannot refuse treatment in an emergency situation OR if they are there alone and no one else can take the case from them.::
That may be how you read it but Michigan lawmakers did specifically decide by a 2/3 vote to not include an amendment exempting the administration of emergency contraceptive which is the morning after pill. That bill does not say anything about emergency room procedures, it states emergency procedures which are vastly different.
Lets put this in more specific wording. Do you condone a targeted effort on the part of lawmakers to shield individuals that allow their personal opinions to force an unwanted pregnancy on a rape victim. You can't really side step the issue or try to group it in with other aspects when the lawmakers themselves singled that issue out. Do you support that vote or not?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 17, 2004 06:45:45 PM new
July 12, 2002Washington, DC: A House of Representatives subcommittee on Thursday held a hearing on new pro-life legislation to protect the rights of private and religious hospitals and other medical facilities that do not wish to perform abortions.
The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (HR 4691) would guarantee that all health care entities are afforded the "abortion conscience clause" that federal and state laws currently provide to doctors and medical professionals who wish not to be involved in performing abortions.
In 1996, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, provisions that protect health care professionals and a "health care entity" from being forced to perform and abortion if they have moral or religious objections to it. However, "court interpretations have called into question whether these sections of law apply to hospitals that object to offering elective abortions," according to the bill sponsor, pro-life Congressman Michael Bilirakis (R-FL).
Pro-life senators, in 1998, attempted to clarify the record by stating that a "health care entity" was defined to include physicians and other medical professionals but not meant to exclude hospitals.
Yet, as Karen Vosburgh, a board member of Valley Hospital in Palmer, Alaska explains, the clarification hasn't stopped states from forcing hospitals to perform abortions.
A local abortion practitioner in Palmer performs first-trimester abortions in an abortion facility and, because Alaska law mandates second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital, used Valley Hospital to perform them. In the early 1990s, the hospital board voted to prohibit most abortions.
The abortion practitioner sued Valley Hospital and both a trial judge and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled Valley Hospital must allow the abortions to continue. Vosburgh, also the director of Alaska Right to Life, said the courts declared Valley Hospital a "quasi-public" institution because it receives some state and federal money and insisted it is unable to prohibit abortions.
"Our hospital's policy is no different from the language of the federal Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortions with the exception of rape, incest and life of the mother," Vosburgh explained.
Vosburgh maintains her hospital is entitled to the same conscience clause protections as doctors and nurses and Lynn Wardle, a BYU law professor agrees.
posted on May 17, 2004 06:55:30 PM newDo you condone a targeted effort on the part of lawmakers to shield individuals that allow their personal opinions to force an unwanted pregnancy on a rape victim.
I'm answering this for the last time, fenix. You don't like my answer...so be it.
I don't see having another hospital employee treat the rape patient as forcing an unwanted pregnancy on anyone.
I see it as having someone willing to take the case vs forcing someone to take it against their personal convictions. The rape patient has other choices - because one person doesn't want to take their case - doesn't mean they don't get treatment.
And I've already tried explaining to you how hospital management works to prevent putting people who are COs into these jobs in the first place. You apparently don't wish to accept that for some reason. I experienced it.
posted on May 17, 2004 07:35:40 PM new
Linda - you never answered the question you played around it and as for hospitals - I grew up around them. Both of my parents were departmental heads. I had this conversation today with my other who responded that she is infinately glad that she has retired and does not have to deal with the nightmare scenarios this one can create.
BTW- her view on the situation is that there are a number of things that happen daily in hospitals that she is morally opposed to but the life involved is not her own and as she was paid to perform a job she performed it, both good and bad. In the real world, people do not get to chose which aspects of your job description you will actually fulfill. You either do the job, complete with the good and the bad, or you find a different job. That's what grown-ups do.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 17, 2004 07:37 PM ]
You hit the nail right on the head. There are many parts of every job that a person might not like, but it's part of THAT job.
The police office might not like arresting a drunk driver who spits on him, but does it becasue it's part of the job.
The janitor might not like cleaning toliets, but has to anyway.
The list could go on and on.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 18, 2004 05:05:02 AM new
Are there any Surgical nurses or Physicians or Pharmacists in this group. If there is give us your opinion on this.
Would you or wouldn't you assist a Physician with abortions if you didn't believe in it?
About the morning after pill I also think that this could be a form of abortion. We all have to remember that it is the right of a women whether she wants an abortion, but I also think it is the right of a surgical nurse, if she wants to help with that abortion. I think it also applies to Anesthesiologists, Physicians and Pharmacists. There are certain Physicians that will not do abortions and there is no law that says they must. There are Physicians that do abortions so that is where they go.
I worked in a hospital, I am not a nurse, but on I think it was every other Saturday or maybe every Saturday abortions were done. They were never done during the week. Nurses did not have to work if they did not believe in abortion. It was a voluntary thing.
I don't think that Catholic Hospitals will do abortions.
posted on May 18, 2004 05:20:02 AM new
Job descriptions are only as good as the paper they are written on. They are not universal, they are written to conform to the hospital that people work in. Job descriptions can change everyday if the hospital choses to do so. Mine changed many, many times and I did the same job day after day. It was a technical job and when something new was brought in or a new procedure was introduced the job descriptions changed.
posted on May 18, 2004 05:45:12 AM newa radiologist decides mamographies are wasted on athiests
First of all a Radiologist does not decided who needs mammograms, the attending Physician does or sometimes the women or man themselves. Radiologists only perform a service which does not include doing mammograms but interpertating them. I do them, I never knew what religious affiliation my patients had or if they had any. This has nothing to do with religious affiliation, but Breast Cancer a very serious disease.
posted on May 18, 2004 04:20:31 PM new
Libraa - you are missing the point - it's not about who orders the procedure (did you really think I thought techs ordered them? ) It's about the person who performs it refusing to do so and now that this law has included such broad and inexacting language - the tech could decide not to perform these types of procedures if they had a moral ethical or religious objection to it. You are correct about these types of procedures are important, too bad that the Michigan legislature was so focused on finding new ways to limit availability to abortion that they ignored the larger picture of what they were enabling.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 18, 2004 07:29:41 PM newtoo bad that the Michigan legislature was so focused on finding new ways to limit availability to abortion that they ignored the larger picture of what they were enabling
What I've read stated that they wanted this bill to allow for issues that are likely to come up in the future....that doctors/etc. might have moral problems being a part of....like the others that I mentioned in a previous post....ones that are not currently allowed....but are on the horizon.
It was stated that way...they didn't have to go back and rewrite another bill. This one allows for all who state what they wish to be a CO against xxx....and if there's a change/new job requirement they don't go along with....they have 24 hours to fill out the CO form.
posted on May 18, 2004 08:41:30 PM new
So Linda- you mean that they had to wirte this absurdly broad law in order to avoid being forced to work in a fertility clinic that deals with illegal human cloning or to volunteer to administer drugs to a death penalty inmate in another state since Michigan does not even have a death penalty and was in fact the first english speaking government in the world to ban it back in 1846?
Is that really that arguement you are going to use?
We are now enacting laws to protect people from being forced against their will to do things that that are not actually legal to begin with?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 18, 2004 08:45 PM ]
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 18, 2004 09:13:40 PM new
fenix-Libra - you are missing the point - it's not about who orders the procedure (did you really think I thought techs ordered them? ) It's about the person who performs it refusing to do so and now that this law has included such broad and inexacting language - the tech could decide not to perform these types of procedures if they had a moral ethical or religious objection to it.
Are you talking about Mammograms? That is a department all their own and if you don't want to perform the types of procedures due to moral, ethical or religious objection then you don't study Mammography. Mammographers are high tech Technologist who have extensive training and must pass an examination. If they fail they don't do them.
You can order your own mammogram as long as it has been a year plus a day since your previous one. I can call the mammography department tomorrow and schedule my own as long as I have an attending physician to send the report to. Radiologists do not do mammograms. I can honestly say Mammograms do not compare to abortions. Not even close. Mammograms detect masses in the breast. Religious affiliation has nothing to do with mammograms.
If you read my previous thread you will see I did work at a hospital that did abortions and no if the nurse or tech did not believe in abortions they did not have to scrub in. It
