Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Doctor Strange

It probably sounds extreme, but I think any medical personnel should have a clause in any contract they sign stating that they will not allow their faith to ever be a factor in any treatment (such as abortion) under threat of being struck off. What your imaginary friend thinks should never impact on your job, particularly one that is life-and-death.

Kiwi in IE

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

It probably sounds extreme, but I think any medical personnel should have a clause in any contract they sign stating that they will not allow their faith to ever be a factor in any treatment (such as abortion) under threat of being struck off. What your imaginary friend thinks should never impact on your job, particularly one that is life-and-death.

I don't think this sounds extreme at all. If your beliefs conflict with your ability to do your job, creating a potential to put other people's health and lives at risk, then you should not be in that job.

Religious people will scream 'discrimination' of course, however of they insist on forcing the rules of their religion onto others then people have the right to be protected.

UDP

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

It probably sounds extreme, but I think any medical personnel should have a clause in any contract they sign stating that they will not allow their faith to ever be a factor in any treatment (such as abortion) under threat of being struck off. What your imaginary friend thinks should never impact on your job, particularly one that is life-and-death.

My problem with this is that their cognitive bias will get in the way no matter what - if they truly believe it in the anti-abortion way of thinking i.e. terminating the fetus will always be the last option whereby like in the case of Ms. Halappanavar where there was an over emphasis placed on the heartbeat of the fetus. Thus I would rather know a physician's true position so as to know where termination will lie as an option should things go wrong during a pregnancy. Contracts/Oaths don't mean a whole amount when decisions regarding care can be subjective and relying on one person's opinion.

jank

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No! It wouldn't be alright if they had any strong religious or non religious 'pro life' views that were likely to influence their practice. And don't tell me that it dosnt happen because doctors take an oath. Watch last nights frontline if you think it dosn't happen!

I think there should be a list of 'conscientious objectors' to any issue to do with the provision of healthcare so people can avoid them.

I certainly wouldn't want to go near an obstetrician that had any strong religious views.

Suicidal women who have to go through this ridiculously lengthy and stressful interview process should have a right to know they are not going to be vetoed before they even start.

So you would have no problem discriminating in regards a persons profession because of their religious views? Perhaps we should ban any religious person from practicing medicine?

Sarky

...

robindch

jank wrote: »

So you would have no problem discriminating in regards a persons profession because of their religious views? Perhaps we should ban any religious person from practicing medicine?

In a secular state, there is a basic assumption that people can use services without having to be concerned about religious interference.

This thread is currently discussing whether that assumption is being ignored by the religious in the case of abortion.

Penn

jank wrote: »

So you would have no problem discriminating in regards a persons profession because of their religious views? Perhaps we should ban any religious person from practicing medicine?

Are you saying we should ONLY allow people with religious views to practice medicine? Perhaps we should ban any non-religious person from practicing medicine?

jank

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I don't think this sounds extreme at all. If your beliefs conflict with your ability to do your job, creating a potential to put other people's health and lives at risk, then you should not be in that job.

Religious people will scream 'discrimination' of course, however of they insist on forcing the rules of their religion onto others then people have the right to be protected.

What if it was in a private capacity?

So cause religion in the past was forced onto people, it's now ok to force by law securlist discrimination regarding a persons profession and career. I thought we moved away from this eye for an eye stuff some years ago.

Gbear

It's really very straight forward.

You give someone a job to do.
If they can't do that job, you get someone who can.
If they're persistently incapable of doing their job you fire them.

Having a conscientious objection to abortion and not doing that job makes as much sense as a brick-layer having a conscientious objection to working on a friday.

keane2097

jank wrote: »

So you would have no problem discriminating in regards a persons profession because of their religious views? Perhaps we should ban any religious person from practicing medicine?

Would you think a young earth creationist would make a good archaeologist?

Religious views are fine provided they don't interfere with your performance in the workplace, they can't and shouldn't be tolerated where they make a worker perform suboptimally. When it's the wellbeing of people who don't even share those beliefs it's absurd.

jank

Penn wrote: »

Are you saying we should ONLY allow people with religious views to practice medicine? Perhaps we should ban any non-religious person from practicing medicine?

No, of course not. Where the hell did i say that!

A persons religious or atheist views should not be taken into account for their prospective ability to practice medicine. Tell me Penn, would you be OK if the government decreed that you were not allowed work in a certain sector or profession cause your an atheist? I highly doubt it.

keane2097

jank wrote: »

No, of course not. Where the hell did i say that!

A persons religious or atheist views should not be taken into account for their prospective ability to practice medicine. Tell me Penn, would you be OK if the government decreed that you were not allowed work in a certain sector or profession cause your an atheist? I highly doubt it.

How would you feel about an atheist being made pope?

Sarky

keane2097 wrote: »

How would you feel about an atheist being made pope?

My guess would be "grumpy".

jank

robindch wrote: »

In a secular state, there is a basic assumption that people can use services without having to be concerned about religious interference.

This thread is currently discussing whether that assumption is being ignored by the religious in the case of abortion.

Has it been proven without doubt that this is the case because its very easy to state that because one is pro life they must be religious. Aren't there pro life atheists? Isn't it quite possible for an atheist doctor to object to abortion?

Remember a secular state also offered the person the freedom of choice regrading their religion or non beliefs. We should not have the state dictate terms on what beliefs one must have to be a doctor.

jank

keane2097 wrote: »

How would you feel about an atheist being made pope?

I would feel nothing tbh, the RCC can appoint whomever as pope if they choose. Do you want to answer the question or want to continue to wrongly assume I'm a Christian.

keane2097

jank wrote: »

I would feel nothing tbh, the RCC can appoint whomever as pope if they choose. Do you want to answer the question or want to continue to wrongly assume I'm a Christian.

Well you've missed the point haven't you? Do you not think what an atheist believes about the existence of the RC god impacts on his ability to be pope?

Turtwig

Given where the discussion is going this section of the bill seems somewhat appropriate.

an individual’s right to conscientious objection is not absolute and often has limitations. This is because the right to conscientious objection must be balanced against someone else’s competing rights, for example, the right to life in the case of a medical emergency. The balance is reflected by the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in which freedom of conscience is qualified by Article 9(2), “Freedom to
manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

PopePalpatine

jank, I seriously hope that if you end up in hospital, your doctor isn't a devout Jehovah's Witness.

keane2097

I don't believe for a second anyone really needs to have their hand held through an explanation of why a person's devout faith might be a problem in a job like a doctor's.

If you're pretending to need your hand held in this regard I think it's pretty much an admission that you can't think of a good counter-argument.

seamus

jank wrote: »

We should not have the state dictate terms on what beliefs one must have to be a doctor.

I think the point is that the beliefs of the doctor should not dictate what procedures they are willing to do.

I've used the example before, but if a Jehovah's Witness became a surgeon, should they be permitted to refuse to use any kind of transfusion in every procedure they do?

No, of course not. They can of course ask patients to try out a bloodless procedure, but in a pinch they don't have that luxury.

Any medical practitioner must be required to what is medically best for their patient. Their belief comes a distant second.

Granted, in many cases the question of the best procedure is a matter of opinion or belief, but it will be justifiable, with reference to experience and statistics.

jank

keane2097 wrote: »

Well you've missed the point haven't you? Do you not think what an atheist believes about the existence of the RC god impacts on his ability to be pope?

Your trying to pigeon hole the argument with a strawman. It's up to the RCC to assess that persons ability to do the job of pope. A hospital has to assess a doctors medical ability and medical qualifications to do their job. Their baptismal certification or their yearly subscription to athesit Ireland should not be a factor.

jank

seamus wrote: »

I think the point is that the beliefs of the doctor should not dictate what procedures they are willing to do.

I've used the example before, but if a Jehovah's Witness became a surgeon, should they be permitted to refuse to use any kind of transfusion in every procedure they do?

No, of course not. They can of course ask patients to try out a bloodless procedure, but in a pinch they don't have that luxury.

Any medical practitioner must be required to what is medically best for their patient. Their belief comes a distant second.

Granted, in many cases the question of the best procedure is a matter of opinion or belief, but it will be justifiable, with reference to experience and statistics.

What if the patient was a Jehovah witness themselves?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jehovahs-witnesses-recover-best-from-surgery-despite-refusing-blood-20120703-21fi1.html

keane2097

jank wrote: »

Your trying to pigeon hole the argument with a strawman. It's up to the RCC to assess that persons ability to do the job of pope. A hospital has to assess a doctors medical ability and medical qualifications to do their job. Their baptismal certification or their yearly subscription to athesit Ireland should not be a factor.

The strawman is all yours I'm afraid, nobody is suggesting a baptismal cert should prevent someone being a doctor, refusing, or even being hesitant, to make medical correct decisions for a patient because of your religious beliefs should.

The Jehovah's Witness surgeon example above is a perfect illustration of the point, which I see you've attempted to evade.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

What if the patient was a Jehovah witness themselves?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jehovahs-witnesses-recover-best-from-surgery-despite-refusing-blood-20120703-21fi1.html[/QUOTE]

This is just getting ridiculous, we had cases in the past where doctors based on their religious beliefs,refused contraception to unmarried couples . Would you be ok with that ?

jank

PopePalpatine wrote: »

jank, I seriously hope that if you end up in hospital, your doctor isn't a devout Jehovah's Witness.

Does anyone actually know personally a Jehovah witness doctor? And even if they did do they know one where they put their religious beliefs ahead of their medical best practice? These far fetched strawman amusing.


If you google you cheat.

jill_valentine

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't believe for a second anyone really needs to have their hand held through an explanation of why a person's devout faith might be a problem in a job like a doctor's.

If you're pretending to need your hand held in this regard I think it's pretty much an admission that you can't think of a good counter-argument.

Indeed. And the spectacularly irrelevant detour to "What is the patient is a Jehovah's Witness?" really ices it.

Delirium

jank wrote: »

What if the patient was a Jehovah witness themselves?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jehovahs-witnesses-recover-best-from-surgery-despite-refusing-blood-20120703-21fi1.html

I'm pretty sure patients can refuse a treatment if they wish. What exactly does this have to do with doctors refusing to carry out a procedure due to their religious beliefs?

Delirium

jank wrote: »

Does anyone actually know personally a Jehovah witness doctor? And even if they did do they know one where they put their religious beliefs ahead of their medical best practice? These far fetched strawman amusing.


If you google you cheat.

This coming from the poster who introduced the whole "banning religious from being doctors" tangent into the thread :rolleyes:

jank

keane2097 wrote: »

The strawman is all yours I'm afraid, nobody is suggesting a baptismal cert should prevent someone being a doctor, refusing, or even being hesitant, to make medical correct decisions for a patient because of your religious beliefs should.

The Jehovah's Witness surgeon example above is a perfect illustration of the point, which I see you've attempted to evade.

Nobody is suggesting that? Well in fact people in this very thread did.

Kiwi in IE

jank wrote: »

So you would have no problem discriminating in regards a persons profession because of their religious views? Perhaps we should ban any religious person from practicing medicine?

No problem at all if that is what has to be done to protect people from religious beliefs interfering in what treatments are prescribed or implemented. The only religious beliefs that should be allowed to have any influence in medical care are those of the patients. If people find they cannot separate their personal beliefs from their professional practice, to the point their views are being forced on, and affecting the treatment of their clients, then they need to change their field of practice.

If a woman were to go to a GP and they refuse to prescribe contraception at her request because of their religious beliefs, so she has her medical records transferred to another practice, who is discriminating? The doctor or the patient? Should clients have a right to be made aware of this stance prior to making a decision about joining that practice? I think that if any legal medical treatment is going to be 'conscientiously objected' to by a health professional for whatever reason, patients have a right to know this prior to commencing treatment, and also have a right to refuse treatment from said professional on that basis.