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.
Please don't talk about the Hippocratic
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
How is this a good thing? The purpose of healthcare workers is to help others. Hell, the Hippocratic Oath pretty much says that you pledge to help others no matter what.
I bet if healthcare workers chose to stop helping people that support Trump there would be major backlash among those that act like this is a good thing. But as long as it seems like it just allows service to be denied to gays and transsexuals it's a good thing.
The whole thing was about abortion services not blood transfusions. I'm sure you knew that already.
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Nyiah
If they didn't do that to people for 230 years, before the 2011 rule took effect, it's not likely that they'll let you die needlessly when the 2011 rule is removed.
If they weren't doing it before, then why was there ever a need to make a law saying otherwise?
Answer: Because it was being done to many other people under other circumstances and with other religious excuses. THAT is why it was needed.
Maybe we should consider prohibiting the religious from working in medicine, unless they contractually agree to suspend any "religious hangups". Part sarcasm, part serious.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Please don't talk about the Hippocratic
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
How is this a good thing? The purpose of healthcare workers is to help others. Hell, the Hippocratic Oath pretty much says that you pledge to help others no matter what.
I bet if healthcare workers chose to stop helping people that support Trump there would be major backlash among those that act like this is a good thing. But as long as it seems like it just allows service to be denied to gays and transsexuals it's a good thing.
oath while suggesting that doctors and nurses should be forced to perform abortion which is killing a human life.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: carewemust
I take it in the interest of not being a hypocrite you'll support the Church of Satan's stance on not providing medical care of any kind towards white conservative men? If its their religious prerogative that demands they let these folk die, you'd be cool with that I'd hope.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: carewemust
well, unless those rules allow doctors that are working in the catholic care system follow their conscious when it comes to treating ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages...
the title of this thread is a tad bit misleading.
It's not a matter of proof but a matter of principle m.washingtontimes.com...
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Please don't talk about the Hippocratic
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
How is this a good thing? The purpose of healthcare workers is to help others. Hell, the Hippocratic Oath pretty much says that you pledge to help others no matter what.
I bet if healthcare workers chose to stop helping people that support Trump there would be major backlash among those that act like this is a good thing. But as long as it seems like it just allows service to be denied to gays and transsexuals it's a good thing.
oath while suggesting that doctors and nurses should be forced to perform abortion which is killing a human life.
Please show some proof of all these supposed doctors being forced to perform abortions against their will.
Are you referring to
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: carewemust
umm... let's put this to you another way, if a gyn/ob happens to live in an area where the only hospital within a 100 miles is a catholic hospital, is the gov't prepared to protect his right to follow his conscious and follow the most acceptable practices recognized by the AMA, or is the gov't more inclined to protect the catholic hospital system's ability to force him to ignore his own conscious?
and don't tell me that well, if he don't like the way the hospital system runs, he should find another employer unless you are willing to see the possibility of some of these areas lacking ob/gyns.
...hospitals, insurance companies and other health care entities that receive federal funding must cover or perform abortions and sex-reassignment surgeries, even if doing so would violate their religious beliefs.
The first option involves what is often termed "expectant management": watching carefully for problems but letting tissues pass on their own.
If bleeding is heavy, pain severe, or expectant management is unappealing, you and your obstetrician/gynecologist (OB/GYN) may choose a procedure called a dilation and curettage (D & C) to gently stretch open your cervix and remove any remaining fetal tissue from your uterus.
A third option for managing first trimester losses involves using medicines placed in the vagina or between your cheek and gum (most often by you at home) to promote the passage of tissue. This last option means less time spent waiting than with expectant management, and in most cases avoids procedures such as D&C.
You and your providers can discuss which option is best for you.
www.drugs.com...
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Theprodicalson
Abortions and Trangender surgeries are not life threatening medical emergancys.
If a doctor refuses to do it then the patient has plenty of time to find another doctor.
There isn't a problem of doctors being forced to do abortions or plastic surgeries against their will. In order to do those surgeries you have to be a special kind of surgeon. Performing abortions or plastic surgery is something you sign up willingly to do. Seriously, stop repeating rhetoric blindly and use your head...