U.S. To Scrap 'Conscience' Rule For Healthcare Workers, Politico Reports

[Deuce]

The idea is that the employer can't discipline a doctor who declines to provide medical services because of religious and conscious reasons.

Perhaps they are in the wrong line of work, but that is their decision to make, not yours

Abortion doctors are generally obgyns-- its their neck of the woods so to speak.

I'm a pilot, why am I denied this protection for my religious beliefs?

 

[Athanasius68]

But not the other way around. I repeat, I am unaware of any doctor who is forced by his employer to perform abortions that isn't an abortion doctor. As far as I'm aware, there are no OB-GYNs who have a moral objection to abortions who are being forced by their employer to DO abortions. And might I suggest that if that IS happening, that they shouldn't be working there in the first place.

Once again, instead of running to the government to protect them from doing their job.

However, people have a right to have their moral and conscious beliefs.
Essentially, the argument boils down to doctors should have to choose between their constitutional rights and their job.

 

[reflechissez]

However, people have a right to have their moral and conscious beliefs.
Essentially, the argument boils down to doctors should have to choose between their constitutional rights and their job.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Liberal7360]

The idea is to protect, as much as possible, medical professionals who have religious or moral objections to certain medical care.

If they object to that medical care then they shouldn't be in a position that they need to practice that medical care.

If you don't believe in birth control or the morning after pill or the abortion pill or abortion, then get a different job in health care.

There are tons of other positions in health care that don't require a person to "compromise" their religious beliefs.

Don't get a job in women's health care if your religion prohibits you from fully doing your job.

 

[Plasmaball]

If they object to that medical care then they shouldn't be in a position that they need to practice that medical care.

If you don't believe in birth control or the morning after pill or the abortion pill or abortion, then get a different job in health care.

There are tons of other positions in health care that don't require a person to "compromise" their religious beliefs.

Don't get a job in women's health care if your religion prohibits you from fully doing your job.

It's amazing hoe this has to be explained to so called intelligent people.

Meanwhile they tell gay people to just go to another bakery. Yet here...we have to conform once again..

 

[Paradoxical]

This is very good news.

trump instituted a "conscience" rule that allowed people to deny patients the health care they need using the excuse of religion.

Personally, I don't see why religion gets such special treatment all the time.

If a religion prevents a person from doing their job to the best of their ability and for only the benefit of the patient, then they need to get a new job.

Stop forcing religion on patients and the rest of us.

Have your faith all you want but don't expect special treatment.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with health care and doing what's best for a patient.

Practice religion on your own time, not your employer's and the patient's time and money.

U.S. to scrap 'conscience' rule for healthcare workers, Politico reports

www.msn.com

Biden said to fire first responders who didn't obey him so this is just more of the same.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The idea is to protect, as much as possible, medical professionals who have religious or moral objections to certain medical care.

Then they should find work in something more sutied to their bigotry, or at the very least, refer the patient on to someone who will provide all care.

 

[j brown's body]

If somebody follows are rule because God told them to, can we really call it a conscience decision?

 

[Athanasius68]

Then they should find work in something more sutied to their bigotry, or at the very least, refer the patient on to someone who will provide all care.

These types of rules generally do in fact require a referral elsewhere.
Its still not enough, evidently.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This is very good news.

trump instituted a "conscience" rule that allowed people to deny patients the health care they need using the excuse of religion.

Personally, I don't see why religion gets such special treatment all the time.

If a religion prevents a person from doing their job to the best of their ability and for only the benefit of the patient, then they need to get a new job.

Stop forcing religion on patients and the rest of us.

Have your faith all you want but don't expect special treatment.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with health care and doing what's best for a patient.

Practice religion on your own time, not your employer's and the patient's time and money.

U.S. to scrap 'conscience' rule for healthcare workers, Politico reports

www.msn.com

If a person belongs to a religion that forbids _appendectomies_ and they become a Registered Nurse, then they should look for employment at a hospital that does not perform _appendectomies_ rather than taking a job at a hospital that does perform _appendectomies_ and then refusing to care for post-op _appendectomy_ patients "for reasons of conscience".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Good news. It always bothers me when a person uses their rights to deny the rights of another.

"Whenever 'A' annoys or injures 'B' on the pretense of saving or improving 'X', 'A' is a scoundrel."; said H.L. Mencken - and if that 'X' is, in fact, 'B' - then 'A' is a hypocritical, self-righteous, pompous, scoundrel." - Agent X89A.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But not in the military, because you still may have to perform births. I know because the doctor who delivered me, the on call birthing doctor, was actually a podiatrist.

Is that why you came into the world on the wrong foot?

 

[CD8ED]

If somebody follows are rule because God told them to, can we really call it a conscience decision?

If people feel a supernatural being is speaking to them to stop them from operating on the “children” of said supernatural being then they likely shouldn’t be trusted to provide care for others.

Should bus drivers be allowed to deny fare to individuals they don’t like? What about pilots? If EMT shows up and sees a crucifix on someone should their religious preference matter or should they just be expected to do their job?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If somebody follows are rule because God told them to, can we really call it a conscience decision?

If they are actually "hearing God talk to them" then they have more problems than they (or you [or I]) think they do because either:

[1] they are totally bonkers;

or

[2] they are going to have one hell of an uphill fight to get the corporate governing bodies of the already established religions agree to dissolve their own religions and follow in the path of "the new prophet who speaks the word of God as God has spoken it to him".

 

[roguenuke]

Is that why you came into the world on the wrong foot?

My family actually teases me on this, saying that he broke my collarbone trying to pull me out to see my feet.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

If they object to that medical care then they shouldn't be in a position that they need to practice that medical care.

If you don't believe in birth control or the morning after pill or the abortion pill or abortion, then get a different job in health care.

There are tons of other positions in health care that don't require a person to "compromise" their religious beliefs.

Don't get a job in women's health care if your religion prohibits you from fully doing your job.

In the case of pharmacists, its complete garbage to claim its against your religion. You aren't the one taking the pill. Your duty is to dispense what the doctor prescribes to the patient, and if you can't do that, find another profession.

 

[nvflash]

You have a medical choice where you seek healthcare in most cases. The edge case scenario maybe an ER doctor nurse or other staff that may not want to preform a medical procedure that is absolutely necessary in an emergency situation.

In a small rural hospital this could become an issue if the only person or persons on staff are refusing to give the care that is absolutely necessary. So if someone has "moral" objections they need to have that on file with their employer before they are put on emergency staff. That puts the liabilities on the employer and the insurance underwriters will take care that these type of edge case scenario don't take place.

Anything that is not an emergency situation anyone has the right to refuse service on religious or moral grounds within reason and they are protected by the 1st.

 

[roguenuke]

You have a medical choice where you seek healthcare in most cases. The edge case scenario maybe an ER doctor nurse or other staff that may not want to preform a medical procedure that is absolutely necessary in an emergency situation.

In a small rural hospital this could become an issue if the only person or persons on staff are refusing to give the care that is absolutely necessary. So if someone has "moral" objections they need to have that on file with their employer before they are put on emergency staff. That puts the liabilities on the employer and the insurance underwriters will take care that these type of edge case scenario don't take place.

Anything that is not an emergency situation anyone has the right to refuse service on religious or moral grounds within reason and they are protected by the 1st.

No, absolutely not. Medical personnel should be held to the highest standards and have to do their job or find another one if treating a patient in any way conflicts with their religious beliefs. Suck it up or move along.

 

[nvflash]

No, absolutely not. Medical personnel should be held to the highest standards and have to do their job or find another one if treating a patient in any way conflicts with their religious beliefs. Suck it up or move along.

I'm glad you feel you are the "moral" police, but you are in fact not.

We saw this play out in the courts already with the baker refusing to bake a cake of a gay wedding, and this will play out the same way. The first amendment is absolute in it's religious protections within reason.

I can envision this playing out as some demented parent "shopping" a doctor they know won't prescribe gender transition drugs to a kindergartener, then suing because they didn't get what they wanted.

It's just a good thing the high court is stacked the way it is.

 

[roguenuke]

I'm glad you feel you are the "moral" police, but you are in fact not.

We saw this play out in the courts already with the baker refusing to bake a cake of a gay wedding, and this will play out the same way. The first amendment is absolute in it's religious protections within reason.

I can envision this playing out as some demented parent "shopping" a doctor they know won't prescribe gender transition drugs to a kindergartener, then suing because they didn't get what they wanted.

It's just a good thing the high court is stacked the way it is.

A baker is not a doctor, nor did the SCOTUS actually rule that the baker was okay to deny service, only that the government was specifically hostile towards his religious beliefs.

You are imagining things that didn't go as you claim.

 

[nvflash]

A baker is not a doctor, nor did the SCOTUS actually rule that the baker was okay to deny service, only that the government was specifically hostile towards his religious beliefs.

You are imagining things that didn't go as you claim.

You don't give up your rights when you join a profession.

 

[roguenuke]

You don't give up your rights when you join a profession.

You don't have a right to absolute religious exemption from doing your job, regardless of your religious beliefs. Otherwise, anyone could simply take a job and then refuse to do half the things required of that job due to "religious beliefs". That isn't how that works.

 

[nvflash]

You don't have a right to absolute religious exemption from doing your job, regardless of your religious beliefs. Otherwise, anyone could simply take a job and then refuse to do half the things required of that job due to "religious beliefs". That isn't how that works.

Nobody said you did, and I haven't read this exception, but it's probably too vague. As it likely doesn't take into account the edge case where your moral objection denies someone else's need for care in an emergency situation, and I already addressed that.

Otherwise go to the healthcare professional that will provide you with the service you think is inline with your desires.

 

[roguenuke]

Nobody said you did, and I haven't read this exception, but it's probably too vague. As it likely doesn't take into account the edge case where your moral objection denies someone else's need for care in an emergency situation, and I already addressed that.

Otherwise go to the healthcare professional that will provide you with the service you think is inline with your desires.

All care can be emergency care when it comes to the medical profession.

A doctor who would be able to prescribe any sort of medication for "transitioning" or even perform surgeries related to transitioning, is one that can deny a patient based off of their feelings about it alone, they don't need any sort of excuse of religious exemption.

 

[nvflash]

All care can be emergency care when it comes to the medical profession.

Saying a thing doesn't make it true.

As I say, we don't give up our rights when we join a profession, and the government can not force anyone to do anything that they have a moral/religious abjection to, and I have very high confidence that should this high court take up this specific issue, my opinions will win out in their rulings.

Can you say the same?