Obamacare, explained.

[One Brow]

I fully understand what "utilitarian" means. I just think that you and I disagree - and that's okay.

I don't mind disagreement. However, I would like ot see your answer, or the answer of anyone else worried about the doctor's/hospital's religious freedom, to answer my question about whether their right to practice religion should be allowed to supersede the right of the patient to receive optimal care, according to the practices of the medical profession.

 

[Gameface]

I don't mind disagreement. However, I would like ot see your answer, or the answer of anyone else worried about the doctor's/hospital's religious freedom, to answer my question about whether their right to practice religion should be allowed to supersede the right of the patient to receive optimal care, according to the practices of the medical profession.

Look, if an auto mechanic doesn't want to do a front-end alignment I don't see how a customer has any right to force them to do a front-end alignment, even if that's what their car needs. The customer is free to find a new mechanic.

If a doctor has a personal objection to performing a specific procedure or providing a certain type of care they shouldn't be forced to perform it because they are a doctor. Same for the owner of a hospital.

How can you argue that a person should be forced to act against their will, especially when they have a moral objection to the action?

 

[Hartsock]

Look, if an auto mechanic doesn't want to do a front-end alignment I don't see how a customer has any right to force them to do a front-end alignment, even if that's what their car needs. The customer is free to find a new mechanic.

If a doctor has a personal objection to performing a specific procedure or providing a certain type of care they shouldn't be forced to perform it because they are a doctor. Same for the owner of a hospital.

How can you argue that a person should be forced to act against their will, especially when they have a moral objection to the action?

Being a Dr. and a mehanic are not similar. Sometimes people dont have time to dick around looking for a dr with the right religion. If it is in the best interest of the patient it should be done regardless of religion.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Look, if an auto mechanic doesn't want to do a front-end alignment I don't see how a customer has any right to force them to do a front-end alignment, even if that's what their car needs. The customer is free to find a new mechanic.

If a doctor has a personal objection to performing a specific procedure or providing a certain type of care they shouldn't be forced to perform it because they are a doctor. Same for the owner of a hospital.

How can you argue that a person should be forced to act against their will, especially when they have a moral objection to the action?

What if the person just got hit by a bus, is unconscious, rushed to the hospital in an effort to save their life, and the only hospital around is some religious hospital that doesn't believe in current medical technology?

In just about every skilled profession there are standards that have to be met in order to get licensed. I have no problem holding doctors to standards.

If being a doctor conflicts with someone's religious belief, then they shouldn't become a doctor.

What's next, soldiers who don't have to kill anyone because it's against their religion?

 

[Scat]

What if the person just got hit by a bus, is unconscious, rushed to the hospital in an effort to save their life, and the only hospital around is some religious hospital that doesn't believe in current medical technology?

Do you think birth control pills would help in this situation?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Do you think birth control pills would help in this situation?

No. But I think surgery and blood transfusions (which some religions are against) would definitely help.

I think birth control helps in other situations though, as the chick from Georgetown testified while Rush called her a slut.

 

[Hartsock]

No. But I think surgery and blood transfusions (which some religions are against) would definitely help.

I think birth control helps in other situations though, as the chick from Georgetown testified while Rush called her a slut.

In Rush's defense she was probably way slutty.

 

[Scat]

No. But I think surgery and blood transfusions (which some religions are against) would definitely help.

I think birth control helps in other situations though, as the chick from Georgetown testified while Rush called her a slut.

Are there any hospitals that are owned by a religion that doesn't believe in transfusions or surgery?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Are there any hospitals that are owned by a religion that doesn't believe in transfusions or surgery?

I don't know. But the girl who Rush called a slut testified about Georgetown not giving birth control to women with cervical cancer who needed it to live.

 

[One Brow]

Look, if an auto mechanic doesn't want to do a front-end alignment I don't see how a customer has any right to force them to do a front-end alignment, even if that's what their car needs. The customer is free to find a new mechanic.

Of course. Because the state of mind of a person being told they have a tumor is just like the one where the person is told they need a front-end alighment. Because the consequences of not having a tumor treated are just like not having your car's front end aligned. Because the amount of training required to properly evaluate a doctor's advice is almost the same as the amount of training required to properly evaluate the alignment of your car's tires. Because the degree of trust and acceptance in a doctor-patient relationship has the same level of trust and deference as the mechanic-car owner relationship.

I congratulate you on such a sterling analogy. How can I possibly argue against something like that.

If a doctor has a personal objection to performing a specific procedure or providing a certain type of care they shouldn't be forced to perform it because they are a doctor. Same for the owner of a hospital.

How can you argue that a person should be forced to act against their will, especially when they have a moral objection to the action?

I have not once in this thread argued that a person should be expected to act against their will or religious belief. My argument has consistently been that if you are not willing to practice medicine according the the standards of the medical profession, you have the responsibility to not be a doctor in the first place.

Also, I see you're not answering my question. If your doctor converts to being a JW, and you come in with a condition that requires a trnsfusion, should the doctor be allowed to refuse to order one for you?

 

[larryselbows]

I don't mind disagreement. However, I would like ot see your answer, or the answer of anyone else worried about the doctor's/hospital's religious freedom, to answer my question about whether their right to practice religion should be allowed to supersede the right of the patient to receive optimal care, according to the practices of the medical profession.

I think your making the assumption that optimal care will not be available. If a doctor doesn't feel comfortable performing an abortion due to religious views that's fine in my view, he should be able to pass on the responsibility to another doctor who is. I don't think doctors should be forced to perform an abortion though simply because the state says he should.

 

[One Brow]

Are there any hospitals that are owned by a religion that doesn't believe in transfusions or surgery?

Actually, I recdently saw a story of a hospital that refused to perform an abortion on a patient with an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Gameface]

Once you become an MD you become societies slave, got it.

 

[One Brow]

I think your making the assumption that optimal care will not be available. If a doctor doesn't feel comfortable performing an abortion due to religious views that's fine in my view, he should be able to pass on the responsibility to another doctor who is. I don't think doctors should be forced to perform an abortion though simply because the state says he should.

So, you are insisting that the doctor violate his religious conscience by sending the patient to a different doctor, who will perform the abortion? That the JW doctor or CS doctor should violate their conscience by deliberately recomending other doctors who provide immoral treatments? You're willing to violate their religious freedom, but only to that degree?

 

[larryselbows]

If it means that the catholic church is going to shutdown all of their hospitals that are doing good work for the disenfranchised, do you really think it is worth it from a practical standpoint onebrow? Honestly? I think that there should be waivers for the catholic church for these situations - it's the most sensible thing to do especially considering that 1/5th of all hospitals in the US would likely cease operations otherwise.

 

[One Brow]

Once you become an MD you become societies slave, got it.

Slaves can't quit; doctors can. Slaves don't take a service oarth; doctors take the Hippocratic oath. Slaves don't get treated with deference and respect by society; doctors do. Etc., etc, etc.

Are you even trying to craft a serious comparison, or are you just frustrated that you can't find one?

 

[larryselbows]

So, you are insisting that the doctor violate his religious conscience by sending the patient to a different doctor, who will perform the abortion? That the JW doctor or CS doctor should violate their conscience by deliberately recomending other doctors who provide immoral treatments? You're willing to violate their religious freedom, but only to that degree?

Not at all, if a doctor that works at non-denominational hospital, that is his/her decision, but if a hospital that is catholic owned and operated feels that this is beyond their organizations ethic code, then they should not be forced to perform abortions at said hospital.

 

[larryselbows]

Slaves can't quit; doctors can. Slaves don't take a service oarth; doctors take the Hippocratic oath. Slaves don't get treated with deference and respect by society; doctors do. Etc., etc, etc.

Are you even trying to craft a serious comparison, or are you just frustrated that you can't find one?

One Brow, this isn't an exercise in mental masturbation, these are real issues that have real repercussions.

 

[One Brow]

If it means that the catholic church is going to shutdown all of their hospitals that are doing good work for the disenfranchised, do you really think it is worth it from a practical standpoint onebrow? Honestly? I think that there should be waivers for the catholic church for these situations - it's the most sensible thing to do especially considering that 1/5th of all hospitals in the US would likely cease operations otherwise.

1) I think it's much more likely the Catholic church would sell the hospitals than close them down. They would want to get value from their assest, and there are plenty of hospital chains that would want to expand.
2) All hospitals do good work for the disenfranshied.
3) How many sorts of basic medicine would a hospital have to deny before you think shutting them down would be OK? Should there be religious exemptions for a putative JW hospital? How about a CS hospital?

 

[Gameface]

Slaves can't quit; doctors can. Slaves don't take a service oarth; doctors take the Hippocratic oath. Slaves don't get treated with deference and respect by society; doctors do. Etc., etc, etc.

Are you even trying to craft a serious comparison, or are you just frustrated that you can't find one?

I think you're thinking is worth no better argument than I've put forward. Forcing a doctor to perform standard care procedures because being a doctor is serious business isn't a real argument in my opinion. If a hospital doesn't want to perform certain procedures I don't think they should be forced to. Period. Whatever silly analogies I use to illustrate that point doesn't change that fundamental principle.