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.

 

Court: Doctors can't withhold care to gays based on religious beliefs

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


Well, I guarantee that I am not a Proctologist!!!! Ha Ha

What you said about misunderstood beliefs is so true. I recently went to a wedding and my own brother (who is not Mormon) was all surprised that I was dancing just like everyone else. He has thought for years that Mormons don't dance - I have no idea where that came from.




posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
If doctors around this world thought the same think then I suppose they wouldn't treat anyone from the Vatican because a lot of them there are gay??? I bet that if that was true they wouldn't even be able to have a Muslim doctor to go to the Vatican to treat them as well as the Baptist or whatever. Maybe a doctor from India might or the Chinese. It has to stop and stop now. Its the care of the person that comes first and formost and not your religious beliefs.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I think everyone is jumping to conclusions and responding emtionally without first realizing what the story is really about.

I would 100% agree with the supreme court's decision on the matter if the medical treatment or diagnosis was for their overall health.

but the fact of the matter is that the doctors refused to artificially inseminate the women. can someone tell me how that's important for their overall health? before you start claiming that these people have rights, note that the doctors have rights too -- the right to refuse unnecessary treatment to whomever they please.

I agree with the previous poster that said that the supreme court just told the doctors that they have to play god or face the consequences. quite frankly I find it morally reprehensible that the supreme court thinks that doctors HAVE to do anything that is requested of them, medically.

very disturbing outcome for this case.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Good for them. Regardless of one's sexual orientation we are all human and deserve the same medical care. It shocks me that his even had to be brought to court. I hope they extend this to pharmacists withholding birth control as well.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
hehe. They had to TELL that do the doctors?
Shows how much the docs know.

A little off topic, i saw this book the other day and somebody is ranting in it about how the us goverment is removing all chrisian influences from public and governmental buildings. Im going to try to rant on this later. First i have to type it up in ms word.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Just because it's an elective procedure doesn't mean a thing, it still speaks loud and clear to the character and mindset of the doctor. He doesn't believe that this patient is an equal to him, she doesn't deserve the same treatment because of her sexual orientation, so how can we assume this attitude wouldn't be transfered to situations of life and death? I would argue it's not worth risking a single persons life on that assumption and he should be fired before someone has to find out, plain and simple.

If we can allow doctors to discriminate based on their religious beliefs then JW doctors should be able to refuse to give you a blood transfusion or organ transplant. Obviously that's ridiculous, as is making exceptions for any religion regarding even the most minor procedure. The last thing anyone wants to worry about when they go to the hospital is what the doctor does in his spare time, gimme a break.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Doctors are given a license to practice by a taxpayer-funded Board. That means they CAN'T discriminate. Our tax money (lesbians included) provided them with the privilege of practicing medicine. If they want to pick and choose who they treat they should move to another country.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 





I wasn't basing my argument on religion

No but the doctors in question were, and it is therefore the meat of the argument.




Furthermore, I find it incredibly naive that people believe that associations like the American Psychiatric Association didn't redefine homosexuality as not being a mental disorder purely under political and social pressure, without any hard scientific evidence to base their reassessment on. Sexual deviations and perversions, like homosexuality, were once classified as mental disorders by most everyone in the psychiatric field, many of whom were devout atheists


I find it incredibly naive that the words "psychiatry" and "scientific" are actually being used in the same sentence.
You may believe in this nonsense, but that doesn'tmean everyone else should follow it blindly - psychiatry is not a science and should not be considered as such.
It's a slightly more sophisticated form of witch doctor.




In fact, by definition, homosexuality is abnormal behavior, as it does not conform to normalcy, ie: what the average person's behavior consists of.


In that case, it can also be said that many CTers are not good parents and could potentially damage a child because what they believe in falls outside what most would consider "normal" and this is clearly not the case.

The "average" person also does not exist - there is not and has never been a "normal" person, except in the eyes of those who want to fleece us or label us on the spurious grounds that they have a better idea of the human condition than anyone else.




I would feel equally disturbed by doctors conducting artificial insemination or adoption agencies placing children in homes with anyone who displays seriously abnormal behaviors such as obsessive compulsive disorder, Munchausen's by proxy, or severe clinical depression.


And now we come to the meat of your argument, which is that you somehow feel that gay equals mentally disturbed - there is no evidence to suggest (apart from homophobic evidence) that homosexuality is a mental illness, nor is it deviant, and nor can it be considered abnormal.
In fact, homosexual behaviour is far from unknown in animals, including beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, orangutans, monkeys (including chimps) and birds.
This would indicate that it is normal across species for some animals to be homosexual and even bi-sexual - or perhaps the psychiatric association have concluded after in-depth study including many hours of interviews of these animals at $200 per hour that their behaviour is also deviant?

Frankly, I had a higher opinion of you than that, but it appears I was wrong.

The other fact which you tried to sidestep, is that the 2 doctors were basing their decision on their religion, NOT on psychiatric or mentally fit grounds.

[edit on 19/8/2008 by budski]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


It's not up to the doctor to say whether someone is a fit parent or an unfit parent, based on nothing more than a false ideological/religious premise.

The fact is, a person in a gay relationship has as much right to be a parent as person in a "normal" relationship.

There's also the fact that the man whose teachings these doctors allegedly follow never said a word about homosexuality, let alone condemn it.



Sure, they can choose to be a parent, but the doctors believe that they would be doing the child a diservice, which violates their oath.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
Just because it's an elective procedure doesn't mean a thing, it still speaks loud and clear to the character and mindset of the doctor. He doesn't believe that this patient is an equal to him, she doesn't deserve the same treatment because of her sexual orientation, so how can we assume this attitude wouldn't be transfered to situations of life and death? I would argue it's not worth risking a single persons life on that assumption and he should be fired before someone has to find out, plain and simple.

If we can allow doctors to discriminate based on their religious beliefs then JW doctors should be able to refuse to give you a blood transfusion or organ transplant. Obviously that's ridiculous, as is making exceptions for any religion regarding even the most minor procedure. The last thing anyone wants to worry about when they go to the hospital is what the doctor does in his spare time, gimme a break.


Your really not paying attention... Of course it speaks of his character. Your forgetting that people are innocent untill proven guilty, so, yes, you have to wait till someone's life is threatened before you can make your claim.

So if the doctor is a child molestor in his spare time, you wouldn't worry about it? Strange.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   

And now we come to the meat of your argument, which is that you somehow feel that gay equals mentally disturbed - there is no evidence to suggest (apart from homophobic evidence) that homosexuality is a mental illness, nor is it deviant, and nor can it be considered abnormal.


It is a known fact that a gay man's brain more closely resembles a womans brain than a mans.

Im no expert, but im pretty sure a man's brain should be like a man's, and not like a woman. This is what we call abnormal.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Bob Sholtz]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 




Got any evidence for this well known "fact"?

I think you'll find that mens brains cover the whole spectrum, gay or not - and it's the same for women.




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I can't believe that a question this would even have to go to court. Seriously, go be a hate monger when you're off the clock, but when you're on it, follow the Hippocratic Oath that you swore.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by zephyrs]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Just so that I'm clear here, these guys are christians - in other words, followers of christ, or jesus.


No their behaviour alone proves that they are christian in name only and that their ignorant beliefs have nothing to do with Jesus other than name.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
First off, to the fellow that posted research from the NARTH website: NARTH is an organization that believes that homosexuality is a psychopathy and should be treated as such. That viewpoint is a slap in the face of every homosexual person as we have first-hand knowledge that we did not choose to be attracted to the same sex, whereas people such as yourself and NARTH rely on a pastor's interpretation of a book that has been pieced together and translated over thousands of years. Forgive me if I move that "research" to file 13.
Secondly, doctors are professionals and should not withhold care based on religious beliefs. The doctor would have provided artificial insemination for a heterosexual couple. It is not up to the doctor to determine how good a parent a person may be in the future.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


You know i once saw a picture of a black nurse giving CPR to a KKK member. That is what medicine means to me. No doctor or nurse should refuse to treat someone based on their beliefs, a human life is a human life. You could even say that they should save them in the hope that they'll convert someday. I dont' think they ever will or should but i just meant from a religious stand point.

Basically the hypocratic oath trumps every other oath in my humble view. Any doctor who can betray this oath doesn't belong in medicine.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by zephyrs
go be a hate monger when you're off the clock, but when you're on it, follow the Hippocratic Oath that you swore.


I've seen a lot of people envoking the Hippocratic Oath. There are problems with this. Not all doctors have taken the Oath, some schools do not require it upon graduation. And there is not a single Oath. Different schools employ different versions. Some versions have a clause about not violating the morals of the doctor's community. And if all doctors followed the original Oath, there would be no doctors performing euthenasia or abortions, as both were forbidden.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Muslims are at it here in the UK.


This all came back to me when I read of the Muslim medical students who won't have anything to do with patients with alcohol problems or sexually transmitted diseases.

It should be stated immediately that this is not a large group and it mercifully does not apply to all Muslim trainee doctors. But the British Medical Association has confirmed there are students who are refusing to attend lectures on these matters and that the refusal is being made on religious grounds.



Telegraph

Even refusing to treat women...



A small number of Muslim medical students have even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. One male student was prepared to fail his final exams rather than carry out a basic examination of a female patient.


Times online

Muslim staff even refused to follow hygiene rules because of their 'faith'..

Daily mail

So, as a former health worker I am glad that this religious morale stance is being beaten back to where it belongs - in our personal lives and at home / church / mosque ect.

As a Christian I would not refuse to of cared for any one, nor should health care staff have that ability. Employed by the NHS or a Hospital, you should have to agree to treat all with an equal slice of dignity and respect.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by itguysrule
 


Utter foolishness. The court is doing what courts are called on to do. That is determine whether or not an action is in line with the state statutes and state constitution. Or did you somehow miss that days in Civics class? Or possibly you hate our constitutional form of goverment. Enlighten me, please.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


That was pretty much my point grover, although I should perhaps have been a little clearer about it - by holding this view they are not only going against what christianity truly means, but also breaking what is supposed to be a sacred oath.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join