Or maybe we should force the idiots who are writing these laws out of office so they can’t write any more.
Do we? You seem awfully more concerned about the concept of liberty more than making sure that women have access to the medical care they need.
Maybe I’m misreading you. I mean I’m not going to pretend I read all 500 posts and some change in this thread.
Can’t argue with that…personally the rapist should have his testicles removed either way. 
2 Likes
So if a Jehovah’s witness wants to be come a doctor, you’re OK with allowing their religious beliefs to dictate your care? If you need a blood transfusion and the doctor refuses because of religious belief, you’ll smile and say “thank you” as you bleed to death? It’s the concern of the person receiving care. If personal belief limits scope of care, it sure as heck is other people’s concern.
Second that. If a rapist can’t control themselves, then they need to be castrated so that they no longer get pleasure, and can no longer cause someone to bear the consequences of their actions. This is talionic thinking, but a concept I am in full support of.
Doctors are not slaves to the public. Yes, they are in some ways reporting to the public, because that is what drives their business and income, but they have every right to choose not to do a procedure. And the customer has every right to take their business elsewhere.
There are Catholic doctors and hospitals who are refusing to do abortions, and they have every right to do so. So, if someone wants an abortion, they are probably referred out by the phyisician or they refer themselves to another physician. They have the right to set a policy.
Cal. I studied Health Care Administration. It’s where I have my Masters degree. And although I am not a hospital administrator, I do make life and death decisions daily. A situation like this helps me practice what I would do to make a decision.
For instance, had a gentleman in my program…last summer he was having great health issues. My recommendation after researching was that he should be moved to a nursing home setting. The State of Indiana disagreed, and 5 months later he had died. Now I have dealt with the red tape of mortality review for the past 4 months.
It’s part of being a decision maker, when health care decisions are being made. You have to know epidemiology and know how to study disease and illness and know the risks.
The risk of death or permanent disability to this 11 yr old…far out weighs the mental anguish that may come if her parents were to choose abortion. With proper post abortion care and counseling…not just for the abortion, but for the rape too…should yield a very strong outcome.
1 Like
I think what is most important is that all doctors follow the Hiypocratic Oath. That they agree to do no harm, to anyone. They agree not to trample on the progress that previous generations of doctors have done before them.
(This is in the same situation as asking a Jewish baker to bake a cake with the twisted swastika.)
I don’t think my Church (former I guess) has any moral ground to stand on to deny anyone a medical service because of some sort of supposed moral objection to it.
Not really. I’m a conservative…you know that. I am also pro life. But in this case, it is the parent’s job, right, and responsibility to do what is best for that little girl. No one else. If that’s abortion…in this case, I am ok with it. The risk of abortion far outweigh the medical risks of forcing her to carry this child over an insane activist law.
There should not be this law!
I believe if they are private practicing or in a clinical setting, they can make their own or they have to adhere to clinic policy (respectively). However, if they are a hospitalist, they can’t turn away anyone. Doctors, like anyone else, are employees- employees that take an oath. They have to report to higher ups, they have to report to hospital/clinic policy.
Look, most of my doctors work in a Catholic hospital- St. Francis. And they state upfront what procedures they do or don’t do. The hospital is not owned by the state, but rather by a family- the Warren family. The Warren family has every right to set policies that their doctors, office managers, and other employees should follow. There’s a code of ethics, too. There are still government regulations, but none of those include having to do an abortion.
This is where the legality of it all gets hairy, and you get into business. (Your wiki is open, by the way. Friendly reminder. 
)
Professionally, once a doctor takes that Hypocratic oath…their personal religious beliefs become secondary, or they would not work at my Hospital.
And they have that right if their employer is a catholic or religious hospital. But public and for profit hospitals do not have to abide by religious beliefs.
I don’t see the same exceptions made for the Blackfeet or Sioux when it comes to the Dakota Access Pipeline. When they make religious objections, the cops pull out the hoses. Or literally infiltrate them to cause racial discord.
That I agree on. It depends on who owns the hospital/clinic.
1 Like
Apples to oranges.
How so?
So you are OK with not giving a life saving blood transfusion if it goes against a personal belief?
How about a pregnant female with eclampsia. The doctor sees her having seizures and suffering irreversible brain damage. If the doctor decides not to perform an abortion, you’re OK with the outcome on the mother?
Medical to non-medical. The laws are different.
