It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. HealthCare Workers Are Free To Follow Their Beliefs and Conscience Again.

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Hazardous1408

If we're to play tit for tat on the hypocrisies in politics......


Scratch that, I don't want to live that long.


The game would never end, mate...

However, I do distinctly remember being told Trump was “different” and “not a politician” for about a year and a half...




posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408




However, I do distinctly remember being told Trump was “different” and “not a politician” for about a year and a half...


Indeed. I'd say he's learning. Baptism by fire. Oh, and there is no denying that he is 'different!'



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Oh, and there is no denying that he is 'different!'


Tou-bloody-che!




posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 12:30 AM
link   
As a healthcare worker I find this wrong. My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the care I give nor should it?.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Refusing to participate in an abortion is all well and good and I don't have a problem with that, but this also opens up the possibility of some pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control or the morning after type pills for post-rape cases. That also would fall under religious objection.

It also could allow, for instance, a Catholic doctor to refuse to prescribe birth control or the morning after pills.

Sorry, but I don't see any sort of positive to that whatsoever. I live in a very small town with one pharmacy and a small clinic whose doctors are not taking on any more patients because they're full. Going to an alternate pharmacy or a doctor is a very long 2 hour one way trip to a larger city.

I just find it rather hard to understand how someone with religious objections to certain medical procedures could go into that field where the possibility of them encountering such procedures is likely. If you go into healthcare to help people, you go into healthcare to help all people equally, or find another profession that doesn't toss you into situations you're offended by.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Oh please. Give me a break. We're gonna let beliefs determine trestment? No just no.
If you have issues with lifestyles get a job where it won't effect you. I can't wait for this morons impeachment. What an ass he is.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Oh please. Give me a break. We're gonna let beliefs determine trestment? No just no.
If you have issues with lifestyles get a job where it won't effect you. I can't wait for this morons impeachment. What an ass he is.


We just go back to the way it was before 2011. You made it OK, as did everyone else.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Its what he lives for. The vindictive child that he is.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




I know there will be some people who'll be upset over allowing healthcare workers to decline to treat certain individuals, and/or perform certain procedures that they morally object to. But the desire of almost every human being, is to live life with as much personal freedom as possible. 



Does that also apply to a scenario such as the following?

You get in a bad MVA and are injured, and bleeding internally. Your only hope of becoming stable enough for surgery is an immediate, emergency blood transfusion. Without it, you will go into hemorrhagic shock and die.

However, you happened to be unfortunate enough to have landed the RN on duty who does not believe in humans receiving blood products due to her religion. She flat out refuses to transfuse you. Does it right in front of you, knowing that you might expire on the gurney while they're looking for someone else who is licensed to give blood products. And refuses to administer life saving treatment to you anyway.

Doesn't sound too awesome, does it? I used an example that doesn't involve the whole LGBTQRSUVXYZ issue, because when you take that out, the bigger picture is actually quite disturbing with regard to emergency medicine and heroic measures...and the variety of medical procedures on ALL patients that can be refused on the basis of religious beliefs within that arena.

Do we really want to make it legally acceptable for health care professionals to choose prolonged suffering or even death for their patient rather than perform necessary procedures? I guess it's good news for those who don't like the idea of touching some gay or trans person. But it's bad news for people of all orientations who go to seek treatment because they are suffering; expecting kind, professional care, and end up with someone refusing to help them because of a personal preference.

Hopefully they'll keep the scope of this limited to non emergency treatment. If they don't, people are going to suddenly see the results of such laws being lifted in ways that did not occur to them previously.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 01:34 AM
link   
To the OP - It sounds like a victory for personal belief and freedom, and all that, until you discover male clinicians refusing to treat women because they are "unclean", or a whole bunch of other bigoted and divisive practices that are often religiously driven and result in sick people being disadvantaged.

Of all things healthcare should be blind. A clinician should treat because they have a calling to help people.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
To the OP - It sounds like a victory for personal belief and freedom, and all that, until you discover male clinicians refusing to treat women because they are "unclean", or a whole bunch of other bigoted and divisive practices that are often religiously driven and result in sick people being disadvantaged.

Of all things healthcare should be blind. A clinician should treat because they have a calling to help people.


Why didn't all these dreadful things happen before 2011? That's when the rule that being rolled-back, went into effect.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Too extreme. A hospital wouldn't hire a Registered Nurse who doesn't believe in blood transfusions, LOL.

On the other hand, under the current ObamaCare rule, a young person with strong biblical beliefs, would decide to avoid the medical field, because he/she COULD BE put in a situation where they'd have to do something that is against their religious belief.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Winning, that's right were winning, winning is when medical professionals can pick and choose who they will treat based on prejudice, this being the case the people who do this are not professionals but thats because winning.... This is some of the dumbest # I've ever read and ive read some really dumb stuff.
edit on 19-1-2018 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: tigertatzen

Too extreme. A hospital wouldn't hire a Registered Nurse who doesn't believe in blood transfusions, LOL.

On the other hand, under the current ObamaCare rule, a young person with strong biblical beliefs, would decide to avoid the medical field, because he/she COULD BE put in a situation where they'd have to do something that is against their religious belief.





If you think your first sentence there is true, then you might want to do some research. It's all lulz until you find out the truth is not what you thought...and in this case, you could not be further from it.

Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in giving, receiving or even drawing a sample that will be used in the blood banking process. And they get hired in hospitals, in every department, every single day. That is only one example of belief systems that directly contradict certain medical treatments.

No hospital or other employer has the legal right to ask the religious preferences of potential employees. So that does not factor in at all with the hiring process. Right now, emergency care falls under the EMTALA, and so does every worker assigned to emergency facilities.

Hopefully, they'll maintain that compartmentalized approach. No one should have to suffer because of someone else's personal preference when that's part of the job they're being paid to do. Let one person die from medical negligence because of this, and all the sudden it won't seem like such a good idea.

You don't know anything about these already very biased health care professionals because they're currently prevented from playing with other people's lives. Have been for a while...since before Obama. But I still remember when they weren't.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Too extreme. A hospital wouldn't hire a Registered Nurse who doesn't believe in blood transfusions, LOL.


If that nurse did not "believe in" blood transfusions because they thought they made no medical impact then they should not be a nurse. If it went against their religious belief that helping someone was bad, then they should change their career.

People with religious beliefs should put them to one side when faced with their professional duty. If they cannot, then they are not acting in a way that the profession demands. Simple as that. In the UK nurses have professional duties which cannot be circumvented, and a refusal to treat would breach that code. The same applies to all medical professions.

Whatever happened to the Good Samaritan? It's a sad world if people walk on by.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 02:27 AM
link   
This is the dumbest sh@t I've read in some time..pathetic really. If it's going to hurt your little feelers to do your damn job without your religious beliefs getting in the way ..then maybe look at another career, sunday school teacher perhaps.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi


AGAIN.. all we're talking about is a rollback of a rule that was put into effect very recently...2011. The people of this nation did just fine without it, for over 230 years.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 02:44 AM
link   
America is on its way to being great for sure.
what a wonderful world...



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

No. People were refused treatment before 2011. People have been doing fine SINCE 2011. Now we are going back to people being refused treatment again.

We are not talking about forcing doctors to do abortions. No doctor has ever been forced to do abortions. We are not talking about forcing doctors to perform sex changes. No doctor has ever been forced to perform sex changes.

We are talking about not allowing doctors to discriminate against a group by refusing to perform a procedure for them that they perform for everyone else.

We've gone back to allowing healthcare professionals to discriminate. Sad!



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Who would this even apply to? I mean, I'm not opposed to it, but the vast majority of elective abortions are done by docs who specifically choose to work at clinics. Many Gyn docs don't perform them simply because they're not ideally equipped or experienced, and so refer to those who are.

I clicked on this hoping for an end to the requirement for healthcare workers to get the silly flu vaccine. It's what's keeping my wife from wanting to go back to nursing once the kids are in school.

ETA: I see my question has been answered. It's just being portrayed by many misinforms as something entirely different than what it is.
edit on 1/19/2018 by dogstar23 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join