Against abortion or assisted dying? No med school for you

[Sand Dancer]

When I'm the patient, I don't get to choose the drugs I get. I guess that means the patient doesn't get to dictate to the doctor whatever the patient wants.

...Never has been that way, unless you're royalty, or Elvis, or Michael Jackson.

The Hippocratic Oath is a commitment to taking care of the patient.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not think that one has to have all of those to be considered to qualify for hospice. That was not my point. I would think that there are quite a few combinations that would work, But yes, number one alone is enough to qualify. My father has qualified for hospice twice. The first time we were assured that it was not necessarily that serious. I think that he had more of a combination of the other factors. The second time it was the first case. But he "graduated" from hospice twice. The second time he was even put on a Fentanyl patch that they eventually weaned him off of after he graduated. He is one tough old bird.

OK. Thanks for sharing that.

Graduated from hospice twice? Your report sounds unfamiliar. I never once certified anybody hospice appropriate that survived over six months. And we were reviewed for our ability to prognosticate. You didn't want to admit too many survivors to hospice - like a DA losing too many cases - a sign of poor judgment.

I hope you don't mind my interjecting like this, but we didn't use fentanyl patches on hospice. For starters, they're too slow in titrating up to the least dose that is effective - much quicker with q12 hour pills. You would change patch dosages no more often than q72 hours. A very high priority on hospice is to get symptoms, especially pain, under control quickly.

Another problem has to do with the rate of absorption being less predictable as body temperature rises, perhaps due to infection, or if the patch is placed in an area that will be laid upon, thus warming it.

And finally, in dehydrated patients and patients with little subcutaneous fat absorb due do emaciation from disease, drug is less predictably absorbed than in more normal patients.

Fentanyl patches were great outside of hospice - it's pretty hard to put the patch's contents into a needle to inject, unlike virtually all other opioid preparations, reducing abuse potential.

Anyway, thanks for your patience. It was enjoyable to consider and discuss again these issues after so many years away.

I hope that you would agree with a slogan that I proposed for hospice - a terrible thing to need, but a good thing to have if you need it (they didn't like it).

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. Thanks for sharing that.

Graduated from hospice twice? Your report sounds unfamiliar. I never once certified anybody hospice appropriate that survived over six months. And we were reviewed for our ability to prognosticate. You didn't want to admit too many survivors to hospice - like a DA losing too many cases - a sign of poor judgment.

I hope you don't mind my interjecting like this, but we didn't use fentanyl patches on hospice. For starters, they're too slow in titrating up to the least dose that is effective - much quicker with q12 hour pills. You would change patch dosages no more often than q72 hours. A very high priority on hospice is to get symptoms, especially pain, under control quickly.

Another problem has to do with the rate of absorption being less predictable as body temperature rises, perhaps due to infection, or if the patch is placed in an area that will be laid upon, thus warming it.

And finally, in dehydrated patients and patients with little subcutaneous fat absorb due do emaciation from disease, drug is less predictably absorbed than in more normal patients.

Fentanyl patches were great outside of hospice - it's pretty hard to put the patch's contents into a needle to inject, unlike virtually all other opioid preparations, reducing abuse potential.

Anyway, thanks for your patience. It was enjoyable to consider and discuss again these issues after so many years away.

I hope that you would agree with a slogan that I proposed for hospice - a terrible thing to need, but a good thing to have if you need it (they didn't like it).

My father is in a nursing home and they may have loser standards there since people are already under a care situation. My mother had a heart attack and got well enough to go home from the hospital, but was under hospice care at home and lasted a few weeks. And yes, hospice is a comfort for those on it. My Dad's problem was with his breathing and fentanyl can help a person relax so that they breathe more deeply. My father has lasted because he was in excellent health, except for some dizzy spells, when he fell and hit his head. From very active to nursing home care instantly. It is a slowly progressing injury, almost ten years. He could almost walk at one point in his recovery and now he is under total care. But he still talks now and then. His second time he was thought to be a goner. Cellulitis in what was basically an untreatable area. That was two years ago. But he came back from that too. January 26 he will be 90.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My personal opinion: I see quite a bit of merit in Dr. Schuklenk's suggestion.

So do I. Healthcare is supposed to be evidence-based, not opinion-based. However, maybe we could split up medical school so that they could only engage in medicine that these issues won't be brought up. Against abortion? No OB/GYN degree for you. Against end of life care? No being around anyone with chronic issues or terminal conditions. Against birth control? No being any doctor that would need to prescribe those things.

I mean, I'm an RN. I respect patients' wishes no matter how dumb they are. Patients shouldn't have to deal with MY biases, though.

Abortion is medical treatment ?

Yep. It's not a car wash or anything.

So, this proposal essentially codifies thought control. Believe as we say, or you will be denied the opportunity to pursue your chosen profession.

I assume then that for Christian medical schools, the opposite would be acceptable. No admission if you believe abortion is acceptable, or you would choose to aid in killing someone.

So, let me get this straight: Christian or other religious universities that condemn being gay, or having sex, or partying, or whatever are completely wrong to do so because they are codifying thought control?

The Hippocratic oath says " first, cause no harm". Killing someone is harm, to me

Be in the medical profession and you might see more nuance. Personally, I'm getting real tired of watching people suffer and die.

I note from other posts, and this one, you are really committed to using force against those who don't think like you.

Isn't this the MO of basically every Christian college or university?

Medical personnel is there to save and treat people,

Not hospice. Their entire point for existing is to help comfort the dying. You don't treat to cure. That ship has sailed.

I have basic health worker education my self and been in a situation where I was asked to help end someone's life, my answer was No I can not do that

I have more than a basic health worker education. It is my responsibility to give morphine to dying patients. Many times, that results in them clocking out pretty quick. I became a nurse, in part, to honor my late grandmother, who died from a lot of problems that weren't being treated, but she was never put on hospice either. She suffered. A lot. I didn't want that to happen to other people. Nurses I work with plus myself would come unglued if hospice refused to admit a patient who was suffering or the family was too dumb/selfish to understand that death comes to us all but suffering need not do so.

I mean, I'm fine if you couldn't pull the plug because it wasn't in your scope of practice. I know I'd certainly get in trouble if I asked a nurse's aide to do it. I work in long term care, so we don't really do "unplugging". That's more of a hospital thing. There are probably rules for that kind of thing, like who gets to do what.

And this person supposedly knows anything about ethics?

It's literally in their job title?

Ridiculous. These people may have turned out to be experts in other fields and they wouldn't have even been given a chance.

They can go get training in those other fields, then. If they think Baby Jesus is going to cry over some procedure, they shouldn't be dishonest enough to seek a job they are unwilling to do. Or is "take up your cross" not done anymore?

People with conservative views are always going to exist and you don't just have the right to kick us out of your society.

Conservatives don't have to be kicked out of society. They just need to apply for jobs they are willing to do. Free up the limited space in schools for people who want to do the job. Would you hire a female Muslim who thinks women shouldn't drive as a truck driver?

Well, that's just not true. Doctors swear an oath, and are expected by their society to uphold it. And they don't take that oath presuming that it's not going to apply to them whenever their conscience bristles.

I was brought up in nursing school that patient-centered care was the primary objective. Staff should not be dictating what happens to a patient.

consistent with good judgment

Trying to glue the head on someone beheaded is not good judgment.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If I was looking for something "godly," I certainly wouldn't try to find it with you.

Then why persist at RF with all of us Christian trolls! Why not quit the forums and stop pretending you want to learn, since as you wrote, "If I WAS LOOKING for something godly..."

If you're not interested in learning by looking for god, leaving RF is your best play!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then why persist at RF with all of us Christian trolls!

You're the lab section of this course. Lecture is the qualified people teaching one another about matters such as evolution and climate change, for example.

The lab is observing the believers and how they think - what is their spectrum from reasonable to full-tilt of the rails.. This activity and the news are my two principal sources of information about what Christianity actually is and does to people immersed in it. Christians will tell you that theirs is a religion of love, and that it is the atheist who is immoral, but all one need do is look at the statistic that 81% of white American evangelicals supported candidates that include a credibly accused pedophile and a credibly accused adulterer and self- admitted serial sexual predator.

Also in the news, we see the hypocrisy of families like the Palins and Duggars, we meet the lovely people like the Duck Dynasty guy and Kim Davis, the corrupt televangelists like Bakker and Haggard, and the endless sexual scandals and cover-ups from the likes of Warren Jeffs and the Catholic church, the cultic people like Koresh. And we see Christian intolerance and bigotry in the news, especially for the LGBTQ community.

Then, I come here and flesh it out with the words of individual believers, many of whom I have read at length for a few years now. The creationists have been the most revealing. Here is where I see the atheophobia and anti-scientism / anti-intellectualism that characterizes so many Christians This is where I learn what is being taught in the churches. This is where I see the darkness and nihilism that characterizes so many Christians' view of our world - a world that they are told is evil and to stay detached from.

You don't get that kind of view of Christianity anywhere else. Face-to-face is usually much briefer and less open, because those are people I am likely to encounter again in other contexts - perhaps at a party. I won't even speak frankly to the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses that come by. I understand that they will consider me evil and amoral just for not being one of them. Who needs that attitude from neighbors? We just tell them "Este hogar es católico" - this home is Catholic. They prefer it to "Este hogar es ateo" - this home is atheist.

So it has to be played much closer to the vest than in an anonymous Internet discussion site..

Why not quit the forums and stop pretending you want to learn

I've learned a lot here, but none of it is theology. I've learned a lot about the affects of faith-based thought on those willing to indulge in it. I've learned observing people like you, not the message you intend to send with your words, but what those words say about the way you process information and interact with your world..

If you're not interested in learning by looking for god, leaving RF is your best play!

You have a narrow view of what can be learned here, and what is useful to know. For example, this is an excellent venue for practicing writing skills, and for constructing cogent arguments. This is a good place to practice identifying logical fallacies and naming them.

You are correct that I have no interest in following you. I rejected that life about forty years ago. I traded Christianity for secular humanism, and am very happy with that change. I have no desire to return to an ideology that wasn't satisfying or believable then, and would have nothing to offer me now.

Also, the god you believe in has been ruled out for me. What do you think you have to offer a person uninterested in religion for himself?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then why persist at RF with all of us Christian trolls! Why not quit the forums and stop pretending you want to learn, since as you wrote, "If I WAS LOOKING for something godly..."

If you don't want snark from non-Christians, then stop - and get your fellow co-religionists to stop - imposing themselves on non-Christians.

If you're not interested in learning by looking for god, leaving RF is your best play!

Religion ends up affecting even those who have no interest in it or desire for it.

I spend a lot of time - not here, but elsewhere - talking about car crashes, too. Doesn't mean I want to be in one.

 

[Earthtank]

So now they want to force medical professionals to be killers if they want to be medical professionals?

 

[Ponder This]

part of the legal, ethical, established standard of care

Emphasis added.

Abortion and medical assistance in dying aren't unethical. Both have an established place in the standard of care. The ship has sailed on that question.

Definition of a conscientious objector:
a person who for reasons of conscience objects to complying with a particular requirement.

If it's in a situation where medically assisted dying would be in line with the relevant guidelines, no: the doctor shouldn't be able to do that.

So you deny the right of a doctor to refuse to treat a patient, which is partly what this is about. Do you understand the implications of that position?

Choosing to needlessly prolong the suffering of a patient against the will of the patient is not "doing the right thing."

Your language here betrays you. "Choosing to needlessly prolong the suffering of a patient".

The fact that we do want doctors who care about ethics is the entire reason why some people are suggesting to screen out med students who would put their personal beliefs ahead of the needs of their patients.

Right. So it isn't clear that that's what this would actually do. In fact, it seems that you would rather have people who don't care about ethics and will do whatever someone else wants them to do. It doesn't seem as if you have an answer to this counterpoint.

I would prefer doctors learn ethics rather than blindly accept what others tell them is ethical. And you are basically saying that people who have genuine ethical concerns aren't permitted to learn medicine, while people who don't have ethical concerns are free to learn medicine. You understand the difference between these two, yes?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Definition of a conscientious objector: a person who for reasons of conscience objects to complying with a particular requirement.

Fine. If you don't want to comply with the ethics of medicine, you don't need to be a physician. Science teacher is probably out as well if you conscientiously object to teaching the science curriculum. Find other work. Find work that you don't object to. Be a preacher. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't let me be a Catholic priest given my objections to religion. I'll bet you think that they should let me anyway.

So you deny the right of a doctor to refuse to treat a patient

Yes. If you don't want to treat all patients, find other work. That's a medical value. We turn nobody needing help away when we're qualified to help them. If you don't want to do that, find other work.

Do you understand the implications of that position?

Yes, and I approve of them.

it seems that you would rather have people who don't care about ethics and will do whatever someone else wants them to do

No, that's what they're trying to weed out by rejecting people who do just that - get their ethical values from a book or pulpit.

And you are basically saying that people who have genuine ethical concerns aren't permitted to learn medicine, while people who don't have ethical concerns are free to learn medicine.

The other way around. I consider it unethical to withhold treatment just because somebody told you it was wrong. You realize, I hope, that when a certain value concentrates in a specific demographic as anti-choice does in Christians, for example, that their feeling are contrived and indoctrinated into them. People conditioned by a religion seldom take an anti-choice position. If the feeling were a universally human sensibility, those people would enjoy widespread support across all demographics. But they don't.

Those of us raised outside of religion simply don't think like that. My values didn't come from passively listening to somebody else telling me what he believes some god wants me to do. I thought them through myself, and concluded that abortion was not cruel if done early enough, and that any pregnant woman wanting one should have access to safe, legal abortion, and that the patient, not the church using the force of the state, should make that decision. That's what independent thinking brings me to. Were I raised in a church, I would probably be representing their values instead.

That's what I mean by it's the other way around. It's the religious person who is passively serving as the vector for somebody else's ideas.

I also believe that people that don't support that value, which is a value of the profession, should find other work. And if they want to go to medical school, the schools have the right to impose the values of the profession on the applicant, not the other way around.

There's an idea held by many of the religious and tacitly accepted by many more that religious values trump all others - that the values of the applicant, if religious, trump the needs and values of the medical profession and those who will be patients treated by it. I disagree. You're right as a religious person is only to not perform procedures you object to. And the medical profession has the right to say that such a person doesn't meet its requirements.

But the religious person will cry that his rights are being violated because cannot bring his rejected values to the profession, as if he or she is entitled to practice medicine however he or she sees fit. Try bringing exorcism or sprinkling holy water onto patients into your practice and see what happens to your so-called religious freedoms then. You don't have them. If that's what you want to do, find other work. Such practices are unwanted by the medical profession.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Emphasis added.

Abortion, medically assisted dying, contraception, and all the other parts of normal, established medical practice that some people object to all have a place in ethical medical care.

Definition of a conscientious objector:
a person who for reasons of conscience objects to complying with a particular requirement.

Not sure what point you're getting at.

In military terms, a conscientious objector is someone who has been drafted - i.e. would be forced to fight. Volunteer soldiers who have a change of heart and decide they can't fulfill their duties any more aren't generally considered conscientious objectors.

So you deny the right of a doctor to refuse to treat a patient, which is partly what this is about. Do you understand the implications of that position?

I wonder if you understand the implications of yours: that if doctors have the right to refuse to provide normal care, then patients will receive substandard care.

In the best cases, this causes mere inconvenience and expense; in the worst cases, it can cause unnecessary pain and suffering or even death.

Your language here betrays you. "Choosing to needlessly prolong the suffering of a patient".

Not sure what you think is the "betrayal" there. My description is accurate: when a doctor refuses medically assisted dying when it's warranted, the doctor has chosen to put the patient through unnecessary suffering.

This is incompatible with an ethical approach to medicine. Ethical doctors look to relieve the suffering of their patients, not prolong it.

Right. So it isn't clear that that's what this would actually do. In fact, it seems that you would rather have people who don't care about ethics and will do whatever someone else wants them to do. It doesn't seem as if you have an answer to this counterpoint.

It's the doctors who make patient care secondary to their religion that don't care about ethics.

I would prefer doctors learn ethics rather than blindly accept what others tell them is ethical.

It's cute - delusional, but cute - that you assume that religious rules aren't blindly accepted.

And you are basically saying that people who have genuine ethical concerns aren't permitted to learn medicine, while people who don't have ethical concerns are free to learn medicine. You understand the difference between these two, yes?

It's like you're reading some other post. Doctors should not compromise patient care needlessly.

 

[Ponder This]

Abortion, medically assisted dying, contraception, and all the other parts of normal, established medical practice that some people object to all have a place in ethical medical care.

Once again you state that it is an ethical issue. I agree.

Not sure what point you're getting at.

In military terms, a conscientious objector is someone who has been drafted - i.e. would be forced to fight. Volunteer soldiers who have a change of heart and decide they can't fulfill their duties any more aren't generally considered conscientious objectors.

The point is that a person who conscientiously objects to something does so on moral grounds. You may disagree with him, but it doesn't change this fact.

I wonder if you understand the implications of yours: that if doctors have the right to refuse to provide normal care, then patients will receive substandard care.

In the best cases, this causes mere inconvenience and expense; in the worst cases, it can cause unnecessary pain and suffering or even death.

Normally, doctors may refuse to provide care. That does not mean the care that they do provide is substandard. The suggestion you make is that doctors not be allowed to refuse care even though they have a moral reason not to.

Not sure what you think is the "betrayal" there. My description is accurate: when a doctor refuses medically assisted dying when it's warranted, the doctor has chosen to put the patient through unnecessary suffering.

This is incompatible with an ethical approach to medicine. Ethical doctors look to relieve the suffering of their patients, not prolong it.

You incorrectly characterized the position of objectors, demonstrating the bias of the lens through which you are viewing this issue. And now you are following up by placing the conclusion to your argument in the premise: "when a doctor refuses medically assisted dying when it's warranted". Maybe you can rethink your argument and state it more cleanly.

It's the doctors who make patient care secondary to their religion that don't care about ethics.

That's cute - delusional, but cute - that you assume religious people don't care about ethics.

It's cute - delusional, but cute - that you assume that religious rules aren't blindly accepted.

Very cute that you regard blind acceptance of positions in hotly debated topics as appropriate additional requirements for acceptance to medical schools.

It's like you're reading some other post. Doctors should not compromise patient care needlessly.

It does almost seem as if we are not reading the same posts. Perhaps we can dig deeper into why that seems to be the case. I would say... we aren't in agreement. I'm arguing that doctors should not do harm, whereas you are arguing that doctors should put the needs of patients first. Who would've thought that these two ideas would be so incompatible?

Well, what is incompatible is the idea of preventing people from learning medicine when they have a genuine interest in doing what is right (so-called ethical behavior). That is the issue, as I see it. The idea put forth by Dr. Schuklenk according to you in your opening post:

A Canadian bioethicist is proposing that medical and pharmacist schools reject applicants who indicate that they would refuse to provide medical treatment, including abortion and assisted dying, on conscientious grounds

He wants to disallow other people who don't agree with his particular moral assessments - those other people being conscientious objectors, who have a moral reason to object (that's why they are objecting). His disagreement with other people's moral assessments is not a strong enough reason to support his proposal.

Fine. If you don't want to comply with the ethics of medicine, you don't need to be a physician. Science teacher is probably out as well if you conscientiously object to teaching the science curriculum. Find other work. Find work that you don't object to. Be a preacher. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't let me be a Catholic priest given my objections to religion. I'll bet you think that they should let me anyway.

Amusing rant.
Compelling doctors to perform abortions or to kill patients is simply not a Basic Principle of Medical Ethics.

The argument put forth is that doctors should be compelled to perform abortions or kill patients. Why?

Yes. If you don't want to treat all patients, find other work. That's a medical value. We turn nobody needing help away when we're qualified to help them. If you don't want to do that, find other work.

It nice of you to talk about qualification and capability as a way to avoid the discussion about ethics. Perhaps, in a future of robotic physicians, patients won't have to worry about people who might actually care about them and care about doing the right thing.

No, that's what they're trying to weed out by rejecting people who do just that - get their ethical values from a book or pulpit.

By being a book or pulpit from which they can receive the ethical values that they "should" have?

The other way around. I consider it unethical to withhold treatment just because somebody told you it was wrong. You realize, I hope, that when a certain value concentrates in a specific demographic as anti-choice does in Christians, for example, that their feeling are contrived and indoctrinated into them. People conditioned by a religion seldom take an anti-choice position. If the feeling were a universally human sensibility, those people would enjoy widespread support across all demographics. But they don't.

Those of us raised outside of religion simply don't think like that. My values didn't come from passively listening to somebody else telling me what he believes some god wants me to do. I thought them through myself, and concluded that abortion was not cruel if done early enough, and that any pregnant woman wanting one should have access to safe, legal abortion, and that the patient, not the church using the force of the state, should make that decision. That's what independent thinking brings me to. Were I raised in a church, I would probably be representing their values instead.

That's what I mean by it's the other way around. It's the religious person who is passively serving as the vector for somebody else's ideas.

I also believe that people that don't support that value, which is a value of the profession, should find other work. And if they want to go to medical school, the schools have the right to impose the values of the profession on the applicant, not the other way around.

There's an idea held by many of the religious and tacitly accepted by many more that religious values trump all others - that the values of the applicant, if religious, trump the needs and values of the medical profession and those who will be patients treated by it. I disagree. You're right as a religious person is only to not perform procedures you object to. And the medical profession has the right to say that such a person doesn't meet its requirements.

But the religious person will cry that his rights are being violated because cannot bring his rejected values to the profession, as if he or she is entitled to practice medicine however he or she sees fit. Try bringing exorcism or sprinkling holy water onto patients into your practice and see what happens to your so-called religious freedoms then. You don't have them. If that's what you want to do, find other work. Such practices are unwanted by the medical profession.

You make an assertion about the values of the medical profession, but perhaps you are more indoctrinated into a certain set of beliefs than you realize yourself to be. These are not settled issues in medical ethics nor among medical professionals. For example, Doctor Support for Assisted Death Rises, but Debate Continues
Sure support for Assisted Suicide has risen, but it is certainly not settled (...57%...). The desire to load the medical profession with people who will not consider the ethics of these issues is something I would consider questionable.

Perhaps more pertinent is that the "First Do No Harm" argument must be addressed. It is not easily dismissed simply by claiming "the needs of the patient come first".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again you state that it is an ethical issue. I agree.



The point is that a person who conscientiously objects to something does so on moral grounds. You may disagree with him, but it doesn't change this fact.



Normally, doctors may refuse to provide care. That does not mean the care that they do provide is substandard. The suggestion you make is that doctors not be allowed to refuse care even though they have a moral reason not to.



You incorrectly characterized the position of objectors, demonstrating the bias of the lens through which you are viewing this issue. And now you are following up by placing the conclusion to your argument in the premise: "when a doctor refuses medically assisted dying when it's warranted". Maybe you can rethink your argument and state it more cleanly.



That's cute - delusional, but cute - that you assume religious people don't care about ethics.



Very cute that you regard blind acceptance of positions in hotly debated topics as appropriate additional requirements for acceptance to medical schools.



It does almost seem as if we are not reading the same posts. Perhaps we can dig deeper into why that seems to be the case. I would say... we aren't in agreement. I'm arguing that doctors should not do harm, whereas you are arguing that doctors should put the needs of patients first. Who would've thought that these two ideas would be so incompatible?

Well, what is incompatible is the idea of preventing people from learning medicine when they have a genuine interest in doing what is right (so-called ethical behavior). That is the issue, as I see it. The idea put forth by Dr. Schuklenk according to you in your opening post:


He wants to disallow other people who don't agree with his particular moral assessments - those other people being conscientious objectors, who have a moral reason to object (that's why they are objecting). His disagreement with other people's moral assessments is not a strong enough reason to support his proposal.



Amusing rant.
Compelling doctors to perform abortions or to kill patients is simply not a Basic Principle of Medical Ethics.

The argument put forth is that doctors should be compelled to perform abortions or kill patients. Why?



It nice of you to talk about qualification and capability as a way to avoid the discussion about ethics. Perhaps, in a future of robotic physicians, patients won't have to worry about people who might actually care about them and care about doing the right thing.



By being a book or pulpit from which they can receive the ethical values that they "should" have?



You make an assertion about the values of the medical profession, but perhaps you are more indoctrinated into a certain set of beliefs than you realize yourself to be. These are not settled issues in medical ethics nor among medical professionals. For example, Doctor Support for Assisted Death Rises, but Debate Continues
Sure support for Assisted Suicide has risen, but it is certainly not settled (...57%...). The desire to load the medical profession with people who will not consider the ethics of these issues is something I would consider questionable.

Perhaps more pertinent is that the "First Do No Harm" argument must be addressed. It is not easily dismissed simply by claiming "the needs of the patient come first".

I have no interest in accommodating the "morals" of doctors who oppose humane treatment of the dying, bodily autonomy, or the right of women to have power over when they choose to become pregnant.

I also have no interest in continuing a conversation with someone who is apparently incapable of replying to my posts without misrepresenting what I've said.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That's a noble goal, but not realistic, and future and current doctors must accept that they cannot and will not save everyone.

It is their duty to try though, isn't it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is their duty to try though, isn't it?

That really depends. If a patient has signed a DNR, trying and making the attempt could result in a very serious problem for those who ignored the DNR.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And if a medical school applicant "refuses to perform certain things because of personal ethics" and the interviewer disapproves, that applicant is free to seek out another medical school that doesn't care.

Medicine isn't practiced according to personal preferences, but standard of care. If you choose to deviate from accepted medical practices, you have gone rogue and are at risk of being disciplined by your hospital and/or state medical board. You are not free to let a patient suffer because you believe as Mother Teresa did that, "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering."

That person ending up running dozens of hospices, undertreating the pain of the suffering dying as if that were a virtue. She would be unwelcome in those I worked for.



Agreed. This is why I have lost interest in the rights the religious claim for themselves, and which they believe trump the rights of others. There was a thread this weekend on that topic, which I didn't participate in, but would have said that I recognize no other religious rights than the right to believe (but not practice) whatever you like, to read a holy book, pray, and assemble with like-minded people perhaps to hear sermons or sing hymns, decorate a home or tree for Christmas, and to adorn one's neck or car bumper with religious images - and that's about it. I acknowledge no right to refuse service based on personal beliefs. I prefer the right to receive that service whether it be an abortion or a wedding cake. The religious have become too spoiled in their demands and expectations.



What debate? You've got the religious with theocratic tendencies trying to pull America back to a bad old time. I watched the Netflix documentary on Gloria Allred, a prominent American feminist activist and attorney, and learned that she had been raped at gunpoint at age 25 while vacationing in the Caribbean, before abortion was legal. She was asked if that was the worst thing that had ever happened to her. She answered no. It was the back alley abortion she needed because of the rape. She began hemorrhaging and developed a fever of 106 degrees due to infection, almost dying in the process, and nearly died.

Your church would have this back, but I say never again. Those are the things I care about, not religious preferences. If your religion or conscience forbids you to get an abortion, don't get one. That's your freedom. But if you would impose those views on others, then you need to be stopped.



Disagree. The only issue is who gets to decide, the woman or the state. The point at which you or anybody else believes a human life begins is irrelevant to me. Pick whatever stage you like. It doesn't make abortion immoral before the fetus is conscious and capable of experiencing fear and pain.



Yes. I did. I was proud of my hospice work helping people to die comfortably and with dignity. Were you aware of the etymology of euthanasia - good (or well) death

Glad i got out of medical work long before this thread was opend Because if it is illegal to not want to kill someone or help someone die, then what i need to do is to stay away from every job that could lead to death of others. So health care is no longer good for us who refuse to kill someone

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

There are people who believe with deep, personal conviction that it's child abuse to raise a child in Christianity.

I would say the same about anyone raising their child in liberalism.

You would consider it reasonable for me to argue that the government should ensure that there should be no liberal doctors?

I'm sure that some of them are fertility specialists.

So?

Do you think that a person like this should base the decision about whether you or other members of your church should get help having a child on:

- sound medical judgement, a medical code of ethics and the standard of care, or

- their personal, deeply-held values and convictions?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

If a doctor does not want to perform an abortion - they should not have to.

If a patient does not like the medical advice given to them by their doctor - they can change doctors.

Why do you think it is reasonable to dictate, by State enforcement, who can have what profession based on their personal beliefs?

Maybe we should make all Christians serfs? They are too simple-minded for anything else, right?

Should we take this up with our elitist masters in the Democratic part?

Think hard.

How about you try this - at all.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The state government grants the license to practice medicine in each state, and can suspend it.

Such a decision would violate the First Amendment if it were made based on the religious beliefs of the medical practitioner.

Why does that matter?

The poster I was responding to was claiming that abortion is a "need".

I was only pointing out that an abortion is not always a need.

Furthermore, that's the pregnant woman's call. She decides what she considers a need.

Nope.

If health insurance can refuse to cover an elective surgery because it is not deemed "medically necessary" then a doctor should be able to opt out for the same reason.

The Thirteenth Amendment ensures that you cannot force a doctor to perform a procedure if they don't want to.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That really depends. If a patient has signed a DNR, trying and making the attempt could result in a very serious problem for those who ignored the DNR.

I don't see the relevance here.

If an unresponsive person is brought to an ER, they are not going to assume that the person does not want to be resuscitated. They are going to do what they can to save that individual.

No unborn child can sign a DNR, so no one should assume that they don't want to live.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do believe that many of the antichoice posters do not understand what a modern abortion consists of. If not in this thread it would be another, but I posted links that show most abortions by now may be chemical abortions. The number has been growing quite strongly recently. Since surgical abortions are a bit of a specialty I cannot see forcing a doctor to perform one, or to even learn how to perform one. But prescribing needed medication is another matter. It probably does not take much more training to know when and how to prescribe abortion pills. Some pharmacists have been fired or even sued for not doing their duty:

When A Pharmacist Refuses To Fill A Prescription

Some states do have laws where pharmacists can opt out, if they can find someone else to provide the patient with their needs, but some states have it in their laws that such services must be provided.

I would not go so far as to saying that a doctor has to be willing to do a surgical abortion, but it is very hard to justify not providing needed medication. Since pharmacists can be covered by such a law, the same may apply to medical doctors.