| Author |
Message |
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
 Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:32 pm Bush Finalizes "Conscience" Rule |
|
| Quote: | WASHINGTON -- The outgoing Bush administration this week will finalize a regulation establishing a "right of conscience" allowing medical staff to refuse to participate in any practice they object to on moral grounds, including abortion but possibly birth control and other health care as well.
In transition offices across town, officials in the incoming Obama administration have begun considering how and when to undo it. |
- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122947155578512197.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I am personally very upset about this rule. This isn't such a big deal for people who live in cities--living in the Dallas area, I am flanked by 5 different pharmacies and several different hospitals with many health care professionals in them. However, I come from a small town with one pharmacy and one very small "hospital" with one doctor per specialty (if that specialty is offered to begin with). If I were a young woman, say, 16 years old, and the pharmacist decided not to prescribe me birth control, I would be out of luck. The nearest other pharmacy is 45 minutes away.
If I were a parent of a young child who had contracted pneumonia and the pharmacist of my small town refused to dispense antibiotics for religious reasons, I would be forced to find a way to take my sick child to the nearest city, spending time doing something needless when my child is possibly dying.
These sound like crazy situations, but they are not altogether unlikely. There are many people in the healthcare business from pharmacy techs to gynecologists who are already using their beliefs to prevent people from receiving legal, approved healthcare services. For these reasons, I dislike this rule. Very much.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:21 pm |
|
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of being a doctor? It also would seem, that with one of your examples, would it not be violating a certain oath health care professionals take? This was a stupid move by him, I was able to support thim through the highs and lows as he is the president, but I cannot, and will not support this move. Totally, and utterly, irresponsible. If that's the case, we the people, the ones who will suffer from this? Should be allowed to have a choice on whether or not we want to pay said individual for said actions, without consequences. Naturally, that'd never come to fruition...
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:39 pm |
|
This law is aimed specificically at reproductive issues and will not be used to deny babies antibiotics. To try and use this kind of scare tactic to remove support for this rule is tragic. This law is aimed at preventing doctors from being pressured to perform abortions, sterilizations, and other reproductive procedure which they, and many American's find morally objectionable. This rule is smart, and is aimed at letting true doctors fulfill their main goal which is to preserve and protect life.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:57 pm |
|
The entire problem with this law is what Syd said above, like it or not you will not prevent 16 year old girls from having sex. It's even not really up to you, the parent, the president, or whoever the hell else decides it's their decision, and not the person herself. In any case, denying birth control creates the problem this country faces, not works to solve it. I get what the mentality is "Well, if we deny it, or scare them about it, they wont want to do it! Simple!" when it's actually "Well, if it doesn't work, or...I can't get it, then I just will go ahead and have sex, without it."
It scares me, because someone with those values shouldn't be in that kind of a position. Like it or not, your doing whats best for that patient, not your beliefs. If you have such a problem with birth control, or abortion, then find a new profession.
Last edited by Lord Borg on Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:04 pm |
|
It is not about trying to stop 16 year olds from having sex. It is about a person being able to keep their job. If you are against allowing moral objection, then fine, but you have just banned the entire Catholic and Orthodox population from being in the healthcare industry, along with many Protestants (at least the groups that didn't suddenly go from teaching contracepting was sinful to teaching it was ok).
Just because you allow for moral objection doesn't even mean contraceptives are going to dry up and you will have to drive a hundred miles for them. People will still be able to get them. These hypothetical situations that keep being brought up are unreal and unreasonable. For goodness sakes, you can by condoms online and have them shipped to you.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:15 pm |
|
IF you have a moral objection, fine, that's your right, however to be allowed to use your moral objection and deny a treatment to anyone? That's wrong. Sorry, but we give our law makers hell for trying to make laws based on their moral grounds (Separation of Church and State, anyone?).
For the second thing you said, some things cannot be brought online, and the idea of her example (which btw? Isn't unreasonable. I've heard of it happening), not to mention, that same 16 year old girl? Probably doesn't want her parents to know this, and I wouldn't blame her.
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:19 pm |
|
| Lord Borg wrote: | IF you have a moral objection, fine, that's your right, however to be allowed to use your moral objection and deny a treatment to anyone? That's wrong. Sorry, but we give our law makers hell for trying to make laws based on their moral grounds (Separation of Church and State, anyone?).
For the second thing you said, some things cannot be brought online, and the idea of her example (which btw? Isn't unreasonabl e. I've heard of it happening), not to mention, that same 16 year old girl? Probably doesn't want her parents to know this, and I wouldn't blame her. |
Yes, I should be able to moral object to doing something without having my job threatened.
Furthermore, the hypotheticals are ridiculous. A pharmasist who won't give out antibiotics? They would be out of business! And you can buy birth control online, or find a doctor who will give you a prescription for one...it's not that hard. And if a 16 year old is living under her parents roof, they have a right to know everything she is doing and to forbid her to have sex. The idea of 16 year olds getting birth control without their parents' knowledge is horrifying.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:41 pm |
|
The idea of 16-year-olds whose parents won't tell them about sex, and who can't get birth control.... is far more horrifying to me. The age of consent is 16 in many states; if you have a problem with that law, then appeal that one. If you are legally allowed to have sex then you should be allowed to not have a baby. Someone who is over the age of 18 in a rural area being denied birth control is also a possibility, or the gynecologist who rules out birth control options because they don't agree with them. In the army a gynecologist told me the copper IUD was not an option. Well, for one, the hospital was equipped to offer it, and two, while she said it just "makes you have an abortion every period," it does not. She was both wrong and violating her ethics.
A doctor is currently allowed to refuse treatments, but under this rule anyone in the healthcare industry could do so. Pharmacy techs, cashiers, anyone dispensing a doctor-prescribed pill. If I have clearance from a doctor to receive my medication, then I believe I have a right to it. A person going through a sex change has a right to their estrogen pills, because their doctor prescribed them. The pharmacy tech has no business interrupting this. The cashier does not have the right to tell a 17-year-old that you have to be 18 to buy condoms, when in fact, you do not.
Although, I suppose if you believe personal ethics should dictate professional procedures, we can apply that to all kinds of things. Like policeman. If a cop has a moral objection to arresting someone for a hate crime against a homosexual, should they, too, be allowed to make that choice? It isn't the fact that they are morally opposed to it that is the problem--it's that people can now use their "objections" as fair cause to cease being a professional and start being judgemental.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:47 pm |
|
I am not going to go into what ifs that yall come up with. Especially when anyone has access to contraceptives via internet. You all know how I feel about abortion. I am not going to go into all of these far-fetched hypotheticl situations. Peace and good.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:52 pm |
|
... huh. Because most 16 year olds don't want contraceptives sent to their parent's door, and most people need contraceptive the day they need it, not a few weeks later... and most people need to use their insurance in order to afford it. I don't see why the internet removes professional responsibility from the healthcare industry.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:04 pm |
|
Can't anybody buy condoms?
Last edited by IntrepidIsMe on Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:09 pm |
|
Does the availability of condoms in most circumstances mean that medical professionals should be able to judge their patients on a whim? Does it mean that a person who objects to gay people doesn't have to treat a gay person for HIV?
... does that mean I shouldn't be able to trust my doctor to be a neutral, safe, non-judgemental person? Perhaps men who haven't had to approach a doctor about something that some people find questionable don't understand. I really dislike it when a medical professional tries to judge me for not wanting to get pregnant. I don't feel I should have to worry about that.
Last edited by Arellia on Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:12 pm |
|
I was talking about the specific arguments concerning the availability of contraceptives.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:13 pm |
|
What about those with allergies to the materials condoms are made out of?
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:14 pm |
|
Well, I happen to believe a woman should have her pick of any contraceptive she wants. Condoms are not nearly as effective as depo-provera, and if I want to have something that is 99.7% effective instead of something that is 80% effective... I should be able to easily, without the problem of getting it in the mail or paying full-price because I couldn't use my insurance, to receive the safest, best option possible.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:19 pm |
|
They make non latex condoms.
I know of a 100% effective method, myself.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:37 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | This law is aimed specificically at reproductive issues and will not be used to deny babies antibiotics. To try and use this kind of scare tactic to remove support for this rule is tragic. This law is aimed at preventing doctors from being pressured to perform abortions, sterilizations, and other reproductive procedure which they, and many American's find morally objectionable. This rule is smart, and is aimed at letting true doctors fulfill their main goal which is to preserve and protect life. |
Couldn't agree more.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:10 pm |
|
Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to keep patronizing all of those *fake* doctors. Someday I'll even be on of those *lying* doctors who would willingly perform sterilizations. Shame my patients won't be seeing one of those true doctors.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:19 pm |
|
Yeah, they make non latex versions and what I have heard of them, you are a silly, silly person if you depend on them for anything what so ever. Also, what would be the solution for a married couple, who do not wish to have children yet? To abstain? That's unlikely. I realize you wont always see the above examples, but it's silly to think they will not happen.
Whatever, though.
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:50 pm |
|
Allowing doctors to object to the abortion procedure is 100% proper, in my opinion. Not so sure about birth control or "other" health reasons, but the ability not to perform an abortion is perfectly reasonable.
As for Bush himself, that man has ticked me off one too many times. He's lost many supporters the last four years - and that lacking support has only fermented even greater over the last few months. He is a disgrace and the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century. I'm not looking forward to Obama taking office, but Bush leaving? That's a blessing.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:09 am |
|
^ I can absolutely agree that it is any physician's right not to perform abortions, if only based on personal risk. Abortionists are the target of many hateful crimes and much ridicule; no doctor should ever be forced to perform an abortion. It is all of the other applications of this law which that bother me, such as judging a person based on their gender, color, or sexuality, and making decisions about these people based on personal moral codes.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:16 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Allowing doctors to object to the abortion procedure is 100% proper, in my opinion. Not so sure about birth control or "other" health reasons, but the ability not to perform an abortion is perfectly reasonable.
As for Bush himself, that man has ticked me off one too many times. He's lost many supporters the last four years - and that lacking support has only fermented even greater over the last few months. He is a disgrace and the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century. I'm not looking forward to Obama taking office, but Bush leaving? That's a blessing. |
I think we should wait 10 years before making a judgement call on Bush's legacy. While it does not look good, we may have reason to see things in a different light down the road. If anything, I thought the real low point for his presidency was right around the second election. Ever since he brought on Robert Gates though (formerly the President of my University, Whoop!) I think that his administration has shown signs of improvement. Perhaps not enough to make a difference, especially with the American people who have already made up their mind, but still.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 20, 2008 2:00 am |
|
| Puck wrote: | | I think we should wait 10 years before making a judgement call on Bush's legacy. While it does not look good, we may have reason to see things in a different light down the road. If anything, I thought the real low point for his presidency was right around the second election. Ever since he brought on Robert Gates though (formerly the President of my University, Whoop!) I think that his administration has shown signs of improvement. Perhaps not enough to make a difference, especially with the American people who have already made up their mind, but still. |
Maybe he'll be vindicated, but I'm looking at the fiscal socialist policies he's been instituting over the last several months with abhorrence. We focused on the financial crisis throughout the entirety of my Macroeconomics course this semester, and that only fermented my view that there were other ways to make things happen. I am very, very displeased with Bush's measures. As far as I'm concerned, his second term has been little more than a disgrace for the Republican party. Like Truman, he'll be vindicated on foreign policy, but I don't believe so domestically. I can't tell you how disgusted I've been with that man. And you're talking to someone who, as you all can well remember, has been a Bush supporter, often big time.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
squiggy
Stooge Two
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 3007
Location: Messing with the fabric of Video Game realities. I'll summon Shiva on you! I SWEAR!
|
| Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:39 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | It is not about trying to stop 16 year olds from having sex. It is about a person being able to keep their job. If you are against allowing moral objection, then fine, but you have just banned the entire Catholic and Orthodox population from being in the healthcare industry, along with many Protestants (at least the groups that didn't suddenly go from teaching contracepting was sinful to teaching it was ok).
Just because you allow for moral objection doesn't even mean contraceptives are going to dry up and you will have to drive a hundred miles for them. People will still be able to get them. These hypothetical situations that keep being brought up are unreal and unreasonable. For goodness sakes, you can by condoms online and have them shipped to you. |
Wow. Apparently you've NEVER grown up in a small predominantly christian town, or you'd realize that these "Hypothetical" situations, are often, in fact based on real events. In addition, they are COMPLETELY reasonable, as I've seen people refused life-saving procedures because the only person qualified to do it in the area is a Jehovah's Witness, and the procedure required a blood transfusion. It's happened here in Canada, where this law actually exists in some provinces. It is NOT a great way for patients to receive treatment they need. I was under the impression that it was a Doctor's job to do what was best for the PATIENT, but this apparently has been lost in today's day and age.
As to the Condoms being bought on-line, a few things here. Some small communities do not have the proper wiring required for DSL or Broadband, notably on native reserves, where electricity and telephones are still sometimes hard to find. And while I suppose, yes, it is a "convenience" to have them shipped right to your' door, the thing about having them available at a Pharmacy close by is that it is TRUELY convenient. You need them, you buy them, viola! No shipping and handling fees/wait times.
In addition, if your' Doctor refuses to prescribe birth control for you, you CANNOT get it on-line. You need a valid prescription in both the U.S., and Canada to buy approved and safe birth control. And some forms of birth control be done on-line. So this argument is, at the very least, very flawed.
I'm with Arellia, and Lord Borg. This is not a great thing for the people of the United States, but instead something that is going to cost people's lives, in both the literal((ie: Patients dying)), and figurative((ie: A person losing everything because they are forced to have a child they cannot raise on their' own, etc.)) sense.
In addition, I find it disturbing that many rape victims will find it difficult to get an abortion because of this law. And that is quite a hell to go through on it's own. You don't need the added stress of an idiot doctor refusing the procedure to you.
|
|
|
robbiewebster
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 2594
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:32 am |
|
^Just because someone has different beliefs than you doesn't make them an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
