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.
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
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
That's just crazy, that's the same thing as doing the abortion himself.
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?
Originally posted by skeptic1
You do realize that this "morals" clause that is being overturned is faith-based, right?
That is the whole premise.
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.
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....
Originally posted by skeptic1
No, it isn't.
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?
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
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".