Absolutely. If the doctor doesn't believe abortion is necessary, he shouldn't have to do it. It isn't what the patient "wants" but what the doctor "prescribes".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
HIV Drug Violates "Religious Freedom"
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
In such a case, the patient needs to detox under medical supervision. So, in that case, the doctor could actually give the patient a drug in the oxycodone family (opioids). Ever heard of methadone?
Instead of cutting my posts into little bits and just responding to parts of it, maybe you could for once, respond to the entire context and the point. We'll get a lot further conversationally, that way. Right after this one line of mine that you posted, I posted a lot more that has to do with my point ...
Why do you think a doctor, who willingly signed up to be a doctor and all that comes with it, has the right to impose their religious views onto their patients and expect their patients to abide by them? Someone else's religious beliefs should have no bearing on anyone but the person holding the belief. A doctor who refuses to perform medical procedures shouldn't be a doctor in the first place, since they are incapable of fully performing their job.
... But you cut it out. Why? It's like, the main point of the entire conversation.
How about if a doctor doesn't consider a procedure necessary because they don't think Christian lives are worth saving?
start another thread... IMO
No, I'd appreciate an answer.
I'd like to know whether you think there's any line beyond which an employee's personal beliefs should take a backseat to the actual duties of their position.
Edit: I mean, you've told us where your line is: you think it's justified for doctors to refuse to provide medically indicated care within their scope of practice if they don't feel like providing it. I'm just curious about whether you draw this line consistently or hypocritically.
I'm also asking as someone who has been in the uncomfortable position of, as part of my job, having to help get churches built despite having ethical concerns with them.
Even though it felt ethically wrong to do a traffic impact study for a new church or a sight line review so a church could get a new driveway, I did it. It never occurred to me that I should be able to refuse work I felt ethically uncomfortable with AND feel entitled to keep my job. Do you think I should have had the right to obstruct these churches (i.e. my employer's clients) from getting their development approvals?
Because most of it is based on the first principle (which I quote) and a lot of it is repetitive. But will answer this one completely.
So... it is under the purview of the doctor as he sees fit. It isn't "This is what I want but rather what I prescribe". Likewise abortion isn't about what the patient wants but rather what the doctor prescribes. You can't force a doctor to chop off breasts "because I want you to", add a penis "because I want you to" et al.
You don't have to agree with me but you really haven't presented a case to deny my position
There are two points.
1) You are determining (arbitrarily) that when you sign up as a doctor in includes abortions on demand. You have that position because of your personal convictions. But you can't force your position on doctors
2) You are presenting a position of a doctor "imposing their religious views on their patients" but apparently you have no problem with the patient "imposing their religious views on the doctor". why??
done as per your request.
Nothing is being imposed on the doctor; they're there voluntarily.
All that's being asked of the doctor is to uphold their end of an agreement that they freely made, and that they can be released from at any time by quitting.
Ask a better question?
I am sure there are lines. Every law presents lines. Every right has lines.
I could ask the same question
That is actually a good question. Take it to the judicial system and find out?
opinions.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This! This! This! ^^^^
So you agree there's a line.
... and you think that a doctor refusing to provide medically indicated care that's within their scope of practice and the duties of the job that they freely agreed to should be on the "acceptable" side of the line when we're talking about a Christian doctor.
We're yet to find out if you still support this "right" when it would disadvantage a Christian.
The one time I had a serious, ongoing ethical concerns with my employer, I resolved them reasonably: I quit.
My employer wasn't asking me to do anything illegal, so my objection was my problem to solve. I certainly didn't feel entitled to keep my job - and pay - while refusing to do my job.
... but you do, at least for Christians. Why do you think that Christians shouldn't be held to account when they break their word?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Those are the facts of reality. Your response, or lack thereof, is again, complete avoidance of the point.
Which part do you disagree with and why? Please be specific.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
As the doctor sees fit according to his training and the requirements of the patient. NOT according to the doctor's personal religious beliefs. Please note the major difference there.
Of course I have. Your position is that doctor's should mete out treatments based on their personal religious convictions, rather than on the needs and requirements of the patient.
You keep ignoring the part where the doctor has knowingly and willingly signed up for and put themselves into the position of performing all medical duties required of them. And you think such a person has the right to impose their religious views onto people who don't hold those views. Religion is being imposed upon people who aren't members of it.
That's a no-no in the psychology world, of which I am a part of, because it's not supposed to be about me - it's supposed to be about the patient. The patient, who is not there by choice, but because they require medical attention. The doctor is there by choice - he/she chose that field of work.
No, not because of my personal convictions. But because that's what doctors - who knowingly and willfully signed up for the job - are supposed to do.
You don't have a right to hold any job, regardless of your ability or inability to perform it. That's ludicrous. (See my slaughterhouse example that you previously ignored.)
The patient isn't doing any imposing. The patient isn't requiring that the doctor get an abortion - that would be an imposition. You've got it exactly backwards. The doctor, who is supposed to be providing medical treatment, is telling the patient that they won't perform it, based not on the patient's needs, but based on the doctor's personal opinions.
All of the imposing here, is coming from the doctor's end. A doctor who willfully signed up to perform his job.
Thank you.
You would have to qualify what you are trying to say. Example
Which Christian has broken their word? Example?
No... it was your personal opinion. Not avoiding but rather an opinion is an opinion. Can't make it what it is not.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nothing is being imposed on the doctor; they're there voluntarily. - FACT
All that's being asked of the doctor is to uphold their end of an agreement that they freely made, and that they can be released from at any time by quitting. FACT
Every person who:
- swears an oath to put the needs of their patient first (a common feature of every medical oath I've ever seen) but instead puts their personal beliefs ahead of the needs of their patient, or
- agrees to abide by the standard of care for their profession, but the denies their patients care that's indicated by that standard, or
- agrees to perform a particular job with a set of duties, but then refuses to perform those duties at critical times.
... would be examples of someone who has broken their word.
@KenS -
A thoughtful anti-choicer could avoid being put in the position of being asked to participate in abortion through their choice of specialty: a podiatrist or a gerontologist, for instance, could go their entire career without ever having anything to do with abortion. They could also choose a different career path: in 20 years of engineering, the subject of abortion hasn't even come up in my workplace.
Abortion will only be an issue in an anti-choicer's professional life if they freely choose a path where this is so.
If, despite all this, they choose a job where their personal views and job duties will be in conflict, an honest anti-choicer also won't ever be put in the position of having to refuse to participate in an abortion: if they're up front with the employer right from the beginning that they'll refuse to do part of their job, they just won't get the job.
... and if they arrive at their anti-choice views after they're already in the job, an honest anti-choicer would quit rather than continue in the job on false pretenses.
A thoughtful anti-choicer could avoid being put in the position of being asked to participate in abortion through their choice of specialty: a podiatrist or a gerontologist, for instance, could go their entire career without ever having anything to do with abortion. They could also choose a different career path: in 20 years of engineering, the subject of abortion hasn't even come up in my workplace.
Abortion will only be an issue in an anti-choicer's professional life if they freely choose a path where this is so.
If, despite all this, they choose a job where their personal views and job duties will be in conflict, an honest anti-choicer also won't ever be put in the position of having to refuse to participate in an abortion: if they're up front with the employer right from the beginning that they'll refuse to do part of their job, they just won't get the job.
... and if they arrive at their anti-choice views after they're already in the job, an honest anti-choicer would quit rather than continue in the job on false pretenses.
You really didn't address my points. In addition, a doctor does not find out what the "requirements of the patients" are. The doctor tells the patient what the requirements are to treat what they have.
Also, we are talking about one issue here (it seems) abortion.
Not to mention, one is never "forced" to build someone a house, "forced" to take a person's picture, "forced" to offer grocery products... I think you are layering your viewpoint into irrelevancy.
Your position would mean, "I am your client and I DEMAND you to offer Mike Lindell's pillows"
Ok... I think we took it too far. Just what "religious convictions" are you talking about.
Again... "You are a Jewish meat supplier. I DEMAND that you provide pork to me. You signed up to be a meat market provider!"
Ridiculous, right?
If you want an abortion - go to Pregnancy Removal Corporation.