The Physician Conscience bill is in draft

[Zygar]

After searching (unsuccessfully) google, could Zygar link to a story which states that use of the morning after pill could potentially save mother's lives?

As I said before:

I can't see how a morning after pill would be considered a life-saving treatment aside from some rare case where, maybe, some woman will die with reasonable likelihood if she carry a baby to term.

I never said it did.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

No. I maintain that the issue here is that the government is encouraging and abetting ignorance and an ideology based upon fallacious arguments.

There is no argument other than the right of an individual to control their own labor and not be compelled to service against their will.

Some of us support that principle. Others, unfortunately, don't.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see the controversy here. I don't even see why there should need to be a bill that says a doctor doesn't have to perform labor against his will. It seems pretty common-sense to me.

So doctors should be free to choose what procedures they will perform? They should be free to decide when to deny treating a patient?

THis will kill people. In many cases medical profeshionals have a legal duty to act. This is a decision that is clear that was only even considerable as acceptable to people if limited to such a contraversial issue.

Why should doctor or pharmacists have to give people narcotics just because they are in incredible pain?

 

[ponderingturtle]

A doctor is compelled to perform life saving treatments regardless of their personal feelings towards the patient.

Anyway, this is mostly an issue around pharmacists giving out the morning after pill.

Immagine if this law was about all medications. Think of how wonderful it would be to be a christian science pharmacist. You are legaly protected in you job as you could refuse to dispence any medication and the company could not fire you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can't see how a morning after pill would be considered a life-saving treatment aside from some rare case where, maybe, some woman will die with reasonable likelihood if she carry a baby to term.

It often doesn't need to be life saving, just emergency. EMT's can not refuse any patient who wants to be taken to a hospital for anyreason.

So if you have a surgery scheduled at a nearby hospital by all means call 911 it will get you a free ride to the hospital. You don't even have to pretend that it is an emergency, you will just piss off the ER when the ambulance deposits you there.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is no argument other than the right of an individual to control their own labor and not be compelled to service against their will.

Some of us support that principle. Others, unfortunately, don't.

And why are you in favor of forcing employers to not be able to take action against employies who act in ways that the employer does not want they to.

Why are you forcing employers to employ people?

 

[RadioactiveMan]

So doctors should be free to choose what procedures they will perform? They should be free to decide when to deny treating a patient?

Well, yeah. Just like a plumber shouldn't have to unplug a toilet if he doesn't want to. His labor, his choice.

This is a decision that is clear that was only even considerable as acceptable to people if limited to such a contraversial issue.

Uh, what?

And why are you in favor of forcing employers to not be able to take action against employies who act in ways that the employer does not want they to.

Why are you forcing employers to employ people?

I'm not. The OP stated the bill would prevent legal repercussions for refusing to treat certain things. It said nothing about employment consequences.

 

[Terry]

Is it okay if the pharmacist doesn't want to dispense insulin to atheist diabetics? Their labor, their choice? Or does freedom of conscience only apply to which medicines are dispensed, not to who is served?

 

[IchabodPlain]

There is no argument other than the right of an individual to control their own labor and not be compelled to service against their will.

Some of us support that principle. Others, unfortunately, don't.

While I can respect that ideal, there is also the real world to deal with.

This bill effectively undermines the professional ethics that all doctors and pharmacists must adhere.

Doctors are not plumbers. There are obligations that certain professions lay out when an individual chooses to enter the field. Lawyers must serve in their clients best interest; doctors must first care for the health of their patient. Don't like the ethics? Don't join the profession.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, yeah. Just like a plumber shouldn't have to unplug a toilet if he doesn't want to. His labor, his choice.

Good so you are for people being left on the side of the road to die because no one wants to treat them.

Uh, what?

I think that if such coercion was about anything else it would show how rediculus this idea is.

I'm not. The OP stated the bill would prevent legal repercussions for refusing to treat certain things. It said nothing about employment consequences.

It also allows the HHS to pull funding from any company or government entity which attempts to force someone to break their conscience.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is it okay if the pharmacist doesn't want to dispense insulin to atheist diabetics? Their labor, their choice? Or does freedom of conscience only apply to which medicines are dispensed, not to who is served?

This bill is specific to reproductive controling medication. I still like my idea of the christian scientist pharmacist who never dispences medication for moral reasons, and can't be fired.

 

[Terry]

This bill is specific to reproductive controling medication.

Yes, I know. I wasn't clear, but what I was asking was about the general principle that some people are using to argue that this bill is fine, rather than about the bill itself.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

Is it okay if the pharmacist doesn't want to dispense insulin to atheist diabetics? Their labor, their choice?

I wouldn't call it "okay" just like I don't think doing what this bill would protect is "okay" but yes, it is still their choice.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

Don't like the ethics? Don't join the profession.

So what you're saying is that one can sink a quarter of a million dollars into their education and training to become a doctor, then the year after they graduate, if a new procedure or medication becomes available with which they have objections about performing, they're just supposed to toss it all out the window?

Or perhaps you expect doctors to know what treatments shall ever be invented?

 

[RadioactiveMan]

Good so you are for people being left on the side of the road to die because no one wants to treat them.

It would take an infinitely stupid individual to be under the delusion that a person necessarily supports taking all actions he believes someone has the right to take.

I believe someone has the right to burn the American flag, but it still pisses me off when someone does it.

I think that if such coercion was about anything else it would show how rediculus this idea is.

The problem was with the utter incomprehensibility of the sentence. I still don't have any idea what it meant.

As to your quote regarding HHS funding, I don't agree with that part of it, with the exception of the fact that someone gets HHS money in the first place.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It would take an infinitely stupid individual to be under the delusion that a person necessarily supports taking all actions he believes someone has the right to take.

Sure they are also commiting a crime. EMT's are not legaly allowed to refuse patients.

This would mean that many people could be refused treatment because they can't pay. By permitting this you will get that result period.

So you want people to be left to die in the streets, because it is better than requireing people to treat them.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

So you want people to be left to die in the streets

Are you really this galactically stupid?

Really?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you really this galactically stupid?

Really?

You really don't see how these things are inevitable then?

It is simple competition, the hospital that refuses the most number of patients that can not pay makes the most money. For others to compete they also need to do the same.

This is not a remarkable claim, it is standard in many third world countries. India for example has some very very fine hospitals that people from america go to because they are less expensive, and I know that they are not treating anyone who walks in off the street just because they are dying.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I can't see how a morning after pill would be considered a life-saving treatment aside from some rare case where, maybe, some woman will die with reasonable likelihood if she carry a baby to term.

And if those are the case, then just walk down the street to the next doctor.

A) It's not a pharmacist's job, or an ethical action of the pharmacist, to decide whether or not a person's life can be saved by the medication they are dispensing. If the medication requires a prescription, then that's a doctor's choice to make. If it doesn't require a prescription, then that's the patient's decision to make - it's not the dispenser's job and it's certainly not ethical for a pharmacist to presume to make medical decisions for anyone but themselves.

 

[Gate2501]

Next stop:

Scientologist pharmacist refuses to dispense mental health meds!

Story at 11!