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.

 

White House set to reverse health care conscience clause

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Maxmars: I like your thinking. This could indeed be seen as a form of entitlement, but is it a form of entitlement that is bad? After all, not every attorney is required to take every case, not every engineer is required to take every job, and not even every truck driver is required to take every load. A large part of being a professional is knowing when to say 'no'. Should we remove that right to refuse from every profession, and if so, how do we enforce that and what effect would it have on performance?

TheRedneck


Actually, the entitlement itself isn't the bad thing, unless it becomes somehow excluded to limited professional classes, like doctors and lawyers. What it tells me is that before I can know if a doctor or lawyer (or such) finds my situation to be a offense to their personal beliefs I have to engage them in a request for help.

That doesn't easily incorporate itself into my concept of 'service' regardless of the profession.

It is difficult to say that any patient has to take their chances that a health care professional may treat them only insofar as their personal beliefs allow, is a fair strain to put on someone who is coming for help. Better to let that limitation be know, from the outset.

I think any doctor who hangs a sign outside their door stating "I won't judge you" would be much more well accepted than one who would hang a sign outside their door stating "Don't ask me about abortion." As it stands now, you take your chances as you go....

I believe that freedoms, rights, and privileges should never be allowed to come at the expense of the dignity of another, and it seems to me that this 'right to refuse' is generally geared towards ignoring the patients trust in seeking the professional aid (which for the most part they must pay for - so it is a business thing). Remember "Whites Only" signs .... that's where this is heading, unless we force a decision on the medical community; one that affects their profit model... somehow I think we can't trust them to be as concerned about the patient's situation as they are about their own (which says something about the general 'commitment' to service which medical care providers are demonstrating these days).

xoxo stacie - I'm sorry for you affliction, but I think the matter about abortion is the issue... your physicians seem to have a professional opinion about the procedure you are referring to, which is not the same as a moral objection. Unless I am mistaken, in which case, I am sorry.




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

That's just crazy, that's the same thing as doing the abortion himself.


No, it isn't.

Should a doctor who is a Jehovah's Witness be able to with-hold blood transfusions from a patient because the doctor is morally against them?

Should a Christian doctor be able to with-hold the morning after pill from a rape victim because he doesn't believe in abortion? Should a pharmacist be able to refuse to fill the prescription?

Should a doctor who is a Scientologist be able to with-hold psychiatric medication from a mentally ill patient because the doctor doesn't believe in psychiatric medications?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
No, it isn't.

Should a doctor who is a Jehovah's Witness be able to with-hold blood transfusions from a patient because the doctor is morally against them?

Should a Christian doctor be able to with-hold the morning after pill from a rape victim because he doesn't believe in abortion? Should a pharmacist be able to refuse to fill the prescription?

Should a doctor who is a Scientologist be able to with-hold psychiatric medication from a mentally ill patient because the doctor doesn't believe in psychiatric medications?


Murder has nothing to do with religion

why bring religion into this?

We all have brains, we can judge good vs. bad without religion telling us what's good or bad.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


You do realize that this "morals" clause that is being overturned is faith-based, right?

That is the whole premise.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

Max,
I have always thought that Dr's should adopt the proceedure that lawyers use. That is, the first consult is to evaluate whether your case can be helped by his actions and its not charged to you if it has no standing. Of course theres the problem of corporate medicine today that instructs Dr.'s to do something no matter what. My best friend all through High school and till today has been a physician since the 70's and he just recently told his corporate morons to take a hike. He has decided to chuck the corporate and become a country Dr and move out west to some place that needs a Dr. and not have access to one. He told me others are of the same mind because of this situation. John has always been a very ethical man and where ever he ends up will have one great Dr.

Zindo



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


ALL three stright up said they "didn't believe in inserting the device in people with epilepsy". EVEN if it couldn't be controlled by medication. Now mind you the whole reason the thing was invented in the first place was to help people with uncontrolled epilepsy.
They then offered to give me a "double" dosage of the med's effectively putting me in a stupid state as I was so drugged I couldn't even walk. My husband had to take me to the emergency room where they kept me with three I.V.'s and oxygen till I came out of it.
Needless to say we have a new insurance carrier and I am finding out if I can go straight to Uc Stanford.(They do the surgery for people from all over the world and have loads of experience.)



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by xoxo stacie
 


I sincerely hope you can get what you need at Stanford. No one should have to live in that manner. I hope you relize that I was not picking on you personaly,because that was not my intent. Good luck, M'lady, God Speed!

Zindo



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
You do realize that this "morals" clause that is being overturned is faith-based, right?

That is the whole premise.


Ummm, no I do not realize this!

The article uses the term "morally against"

Though religion may be under that umbrella somewhat, it's scope is much wider than that.

However, I am mostly commenting on that abortion issue, but I see what you are saying with the mentioning of blood transfusions and so on.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Oh I know
I just didn't think to put in my original post; what they had all said to me. I just found it very odd because all three where doctors who specialized in the treatments of people with moderate to severe epilepsy. Yet none of them where willing to do anything other than OD me and other's on med's...
( the ER filed a formal complaint against all three of them for endangering my life and the five others they saw that month.)

on topic:
A doctor takes long sets of classes to enter which ever feild he/she chooses. Now if that doctor during the course of the classes has a conflict of morals etc. They need to change the feild they are studying to one they can preform without going against what ever moral/beliefs they have. It is a very simple step that most don't take these days.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by xoxo stacie]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars

What it tells me is that before I can know if a doctor or lawyer (or such) finds my situation to be a offense to their personal beliefs I have to engage them in a request for help.

Zindo took my answer.
(j/k)

That's a point you made before that I liked as well (and forgot to expound on in my first reply; they say the mind is the first thing to go
), the idea of forward disclosure. I see nothing wrong and much right with a customer ebing informed up front as to what they can expect for their hard-earned money. Perhaps some sort of review board that disclosed every registered doctor in the area's credentials and practices? I dunno how that could actually work, butit sounds feasible at first thought.

I would also actually extend the concept Zindo spoke of, that of an initial conference, to the idea that a doctor should perhaps be paid based on performance rather than number of hours. After all, why should a patient pay the same for an operation that doesn't succeed in solving the problem as they might pay for a fully successful operation?

That in itself would decrease the amount of unneeded medication being distributed like candy in order to get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies. There's something about telling a doctor "I'll pay you $50,000 for this operation. $10,000 up front and the rest after a successful recovery" that appeals to me. After all, in what other profession do you have an open-ended contract with no performance incentive for the professional?

Of course, the downside would no doubt be an overreaction in not prescribing regular visits when actually needed...

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Quote"
After all, in what other profession do you have an open-ended contract with no performance incentive for the professional?


TheRedneck
Unquote

POLITICIANS!!! Thats who!



Zindo



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
I think any doctor who hangs a sign outside their door stating "I won't judge you" would be much more well accepted than one who would hang a sign outside their door stating "Don't ask me about abortion." As it stands now, you take your chances as you go....


I think any doctor who hangs a sign outside their door stating "I'm a doctor to protect life" would be much more well accepted than one who would hang a sign outside their door stating "If you want rid of it come on in."

Your signs, and mine, are loaded and presumptious. A doctor not wishing to refer abortions is not "judging" that patient, they are acting in accordance with their conscience and the oaths they have taken. I'm sure many of those who would refer/carry out abortions also think they are doing the best thing, making a moral choice.

Abortion is never just about a therapeutic ammoral decision it is intrinsically a moral one. There has to be a moral choice as to whether the unborn human life has, as the beyond-biological euphemism renders it, "personhood." The pro-life doctor is basing his decision on biological fact (i.e. the embryo/fetus is genetically human with all the necessary identifications of life) the pro-choice Doctor is basing his decision on the numinous grounds of "rights" which in our subjectivised and realtavistic world are odd notions to appeal to.

----


Originally posted by skeptic1
No, it isn't.



I'm afraid it is the same thing. The owner of a gun store may not be responsible for selling an assailant a gun in ignorance, but if he sells someone a gun who openly requests it to "kill someone" then he is complicit in the act.

As for the various scenarios yes a Christian doctor/pharmacist should refuse the morning after pill etc.

Where the JW/Scientologist are concerned then they shoud be obliged to refer. But, to be upfront, I approach this from the Catholic moral position not a question of free speech, etc. and Catholic medical ethics are more than "belief" in that they do not contradict Natural Law. Blood transfusions and psychotherapy do not deliberately endanger life they are for the purpose of therapeutic intervention. Abortion and the morning after pill are intrinsically destructive of life.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Religion is the main thing under that umbrella.

Abortion is one thing, and no doctor should have to perform that if they area morally against it.

But, various religions frown upon various medical treatments and procedures. And, hence, doctors can have moral objections to the treatments and procedures that their religion is against.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
IMHO the revocation of this little clause merely serves as one of the building blocks to nationalized medicine. A note to physicians. If you're not on board, you're not on the payroll. The White House and Congress are slowly taking the necessary baby steps to achieve their desired result.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 


So, a Christian doctor should be able to deny a woman birth contol pills or refuse to perform a tubal ligation due to the interruption of nature??

And, the same doctor should be able to refuse to refer her to a doctor who would prescribe birth control or perform a tubal ligation?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


I dont' agree with a doctor having to perform and abortion unless it is a life threatening situation.

But prescriptions? They are not widely availabel to everyone. Planned parenthood and other clinics are not everywhere. So sometimes a teen or a woman has no choice about where to go.
And the morning after pill has to be taken within 24 hours. So the clock is ticking quickly and people don't ahve time to shop around.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Supercertari
 


So, a Christian doctor should be able to deny a woman birth contol pills or refuse to perform a tubal ligation due to the interruption of nature??

And, the same doctor should be able to refuse to refer her to a doctor who would prescribe birth control or perform a tubal ligation?


The Natural Law is not about what is observed in nature, it is more than "nature", it is what reason abstracts from the experience of nature. In this case it is the principle of respect for life, "thous shalt not kill" etc.

As in all moral issues there is more than the act itself, there is intention and consequence.

For example there is a long standing tradition of the principle of double effect in Catholic moral theology. So an direct intended abortion, the deliberate taking of an unborn human life, is always intrinsically evil. However, some medical procedures to ensure the survival of the mother while having the secondary effect of ending the unborn life are not intentional or actual abortions.

Such cases are increasingly rare and are never a simple black and white situation but for the purposes of an example there may be a case where an immediate hysterectomy is required. This is not intended to take the unborn's life neither is it the direct taking of that life it is a procedure with the intention of saving the mother's life which has the second effect of ending the unborn's life. It is extremly complex and there are many questions, enquiries needed by all involved but when dealing with the huge consequence of the death of another such complexities are necessary.

I'll add a quotation from Pope Pius XII:

Deliberately, we have always used the expression "direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,", "direct killing". Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such a act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not posible to postpone the operation until after birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.
Nov 26th 1951


So ... a Christian doctor should be able to refuse birth control pills if the intention is birth control and likewise with tubal ligation, though of course there will be cases in which such therapy are not for the intention of birth control. Ovarian cancer being a prime example. S/he should also be able to refuse to refer for those purposes. Indeed were our world trully moral and less subjective it wouldn't even be an option.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


If they need the info its available through the mail or on the net. I do agree that prescriptions and the filling of same is not something that should be self regulated by pharmacists. I don't know anyone that has no access to the inernet either their own or a neighbors or relatives computer. I'm wondering if its even ethical for a Dr. to give names of other Dr's that will do certain proceedures. Referals are almost always related to illnesses not proceedures. Abortion is not an illness so I think maybe there's some merit to the denial of a referal.

Zindo



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 


You make good points; but I have always felt that assertions like "Abortion is never just about a therapeutic amoral decision..." bares scrutiny.

If you can for a moment consider that the problem is in the distinction that abortion is, or is not a 'medical procedure'.

In order for a medical procedure to fall under judgment as moral or immoral, one must be willing to absolve the physician of the judgment. I mean, that abortion is 'morally' or 'ethically' wrong, is a value judgment.

I assume that 'value judgment' is not what patients go to doctors for (generally speaking) - what they go to them for, indeed what they compensate them for is their "professional" opinion.

In what way is "abortion is wrong" a professional opinion? I would accept that a clergyman could rightfully equate the sentiment as his or her professional opinion, but we then return to the 'faith' aspect of it.

The government cannot, by statute, criminalize faith-based decisions. Nor can it force 'faith-based' behavior on it's citizens (for the time being). Yet, by focusing on the doctors themselves they have rendered the would-be patient as a second-class citizen who's situational outcome is dependent on the judgment of another - supposedly equal - citizen.

While your analogy of the signs shows that perspective is a factor, it does not change the fact that, barring unusual exceptions, people do NOT consult physicians to be morally measured. If they are not opposed to abortion, why should they be forced to 'take a chance' that the health care provider of the instance, might happen to label them 'inclined to murder'? It seems medically incongruous to me.

I am uncertain that this issue will evolve in a manner that will do justice to one component of the equation (the doctors) while maintaining reasonable service to the other (the patient). But I am certain that the patient is the entire 'purpose' of the existence of the doctor. So I am inclined to give greater consideration to them, regardless of my personal opinions on the issue.

I suppose that if doctors were indoctrinated into the 'regulation' or 'expectation' that their skills are not subject to being withheld for the sake of personal 'moral' comfort, maybe some might not pursue the career. On the other hand, if you hold that doctors can withhold treatment options, based on non-medical criteria, then, why couldn't the same 'right, or privilege of judgment be extended to say... the restaurant business?


The menu says - "Pork Rind Delights", unless the waiter or chef working this day happens to be of a faith that shuns pork....

The menu of medical options certainly includes "abortion"..., unless the medical professional objects morally....

Don't misconstrue this as an endorsement of abortion, it is strictly a 'clinical' (pardon the pun) examination of the ramifications of the logic.

Why should one class of citizen be allowed to refuse a paid service, within their skill set to provide, yet other professions are refused that privilege?

Unless of course we see each individual doctor as a small personal business, in which case they may do as they please..... ironic that as the medical arts became an industry they lost freedom by conglomerated corporate/government control.... well.. at least they get good money for it!



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well one thing is to refused "recommendations" and another to refuse "treatments options" that seems to be the problem.

If I have a medical prescription to a medication that can address my problem that already has been discussed with my medical provided, how dare the pharmaceutical in duty to deny my prescription because she or he has "moral issues".

See that is the problem that I hope is been addressed here.

It became so bad in some areas like the so call Bible belt that even prescriptions for anti conception pills were deny by the some people working in stores pharmacies.

I think is not issue here about been forced to or not to offer alternatives to certain treatments but the dispensing of medications base on "moral issues".



If you own a store you should be able to implement any policies that you see fit. Just like you should be able to implement any policy you see fit in your own home.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join