The American heartland

[Beavah]

If I don't, I'm violating my agreement with the feds to provide medications to consumers. Wouldn't it be best for the Catholic pharmacists to not moralize with the customers.

 

Nah, it would be best if da federal government was much smaller, so it was unable to set up a system where economic survival for a profession depended on followin' da government's intrusive rules. That is ripe for abuse no matter who is in power. What today is "if you want to be economically viable as a pharmacy you must fire Catholics" can tomorrow be "if you want to be economically viable as a pharmacy you can't hire atheists or democrats."

 

Besides, what we're mostly talkin' about here is assisting in procedures which are viewed as murder, not pastrami sandwiches.

 

Beavah, what you seem to be saying is that in order to avoid government repression of religious beliefs, you should be allowed to limit MY access to health care based on YOUR personal religious beliefs.

 

Nah, not at all. My choosin' not to offer a service or have you as a client in no way impinges on your ability to go look for that service from someone else. I don't wash windows either, eh? If yeh want your windows washed, yeh go find someone who performs that kind of service.

 

Attorneys decline cases for personal ethical reasons all da time. In fact, failure to decline representation can pose a conflict of interest because a lawyers judgment or loyalty to the client is compromised. Yeh don't really want an attorney who is conflicted as to his/her duty to represent you.

 

Nor, if you think about it, do you really want a medical practitioner who is conflicted as to his/her duty to be performin' a procedure on you, eh? Just common sense.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[GernBlansten]

I understand your point Beavah. However, in each of those cases, the provider of the service is imposing their morality on others. Morality is a code of ethics that one imposes on themselves, not others.

If you find abortions to be abhorrent, don't become a ob/gyn. If you find vasectomies to be against God's will, don't become a urologist. If you find yourself in a moral dilemma dispensing certain medications, don't become a pharmacist. If you find eating meat to be an abomination, don't become a butcher. If you keep Kosher, don't open a BBQ restaurant. If you find lying to be immoral, don't become a lawyer.

[Beavah]

I understand your point Beavah. However, in each of those cases, the provider of the service is imposing their morality on others. Morality is a code of ethics that one imposes on themselves, not others.

 

No, yeh don't understand my point if you're raisin' this "imposing morality on others" bit of horse hockey.

 

All these folks are doin' is imposin' their code of ethics on themselves. "As much as I love my job of providing excellent health care to women and others in need, I will not participate as an accessory to murder."

 

Seems pretty straightforward.

 

Where "imposing morality on others" comes in is when YOU use da State to tell them they cannot practice in their chosen profession because their morality is not the same as yours. Da primary role of OB/GYNs is to help women and kids, eh? There's nothing in that primary role which is incompatible with bein' a Christian.

 

It's only incompatible because you think Christians and Muslims and others should not be permitted to be part of the profession that provides medical care for women and kids. All because you don't like their values on a small subset of procedures which aren't at all central to da profession.

 

I suppose it's OK if da Christians and Muslims and Sikhs are custodians and sanitation workers, though, eh? Best to keep such pesky believers in da role of "untouchables". Only "our" people belong in da professions.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hey Beavah, remember when you wrote this:

Public schools discriminate all da time. They discriminate on ability. They discriminate by handicap and race, providin' lots more resources to some than others. They discriminate in a "separate but equal" way by gender when it comes to sports.

 

A public body like a school board has discretion, eh? It is free to do what it feels best for its kids and program, includin' chartering a BSA unit.

 

So it must be OK with you if the government discriminates against Christians and Muslims and Sikhs, etc, if they feel that's "what's best," right? You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now, would you?

[GernBlansten]

Its gotta be tough for you true believers.

Can't work on Sundays, can't work in any retail clothing (mixing fabrics and such).

Really limiting the job options. Of course, only if you really follow your convictions and don't do the cafeteria approach to morality, eh?

[packsaddle]

Beavah's 'take it or leave it' approach is also a red herring. I'm actually sympathetic to this idea if the physician clearly advertises up front that he will DENY full access to legal medical care. Do that and I suspect that the market will take care of things fairly quickly.

However, while the threat of losing government funding might limit such a doctor's ability to deny access to medical care, such denial has no effect whatsoever on the doctor's ability to deny that care to himself. He still has complete freedom to reject, based on his religious convictions, treatments that affect him personally. He therefore has the same freedom and choices as his patients. Moreover, under no circumstance does any of that force or 'coerce' him to change his beliefs. Those remain intact regardless of whether he imposes them on other people or not. They are merely beliefs. They are neither increased nor diminished by his ability or inability to harm other people. They are unaffected.

[sheldonsmom]

How about the other side of the coin?

 

I have had five pregnancies. Three of them were "toxic" in that I had pre-ecclampsia or toximia. In the last pregnancy, my ob suggested an abortion since I would not be able to carry to term and the life of the baby was in danger. I asked her if she was telling me to get an abortion and she said yes.

I calmly finished the appointment, walked out of her office and found a new doctor since I could no longer trust her to work in the best interests of the baby. Just for the record, the pregnancy lasted a total of 29 weeks and our daughter was born weighing a scant 2 lbs. She is now five and doing fine but I knew the odds and made my own decision.

I sought a doctor that would not perform abortions so that I was sure that every effort would be made to save my daughter. Do I not have that right?

 

If we do not allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals a choice in the type of medicine they practice, ie pro-life, we reduce them to indentured servants. I know lawyers who will not do divorces because it is against their beliefs but you are not demanding they lose their licence.

 

Every law we have is a question of morals. We say it is not moral to murder, to steal, to batter. Why are these morals acceptable?

[packsaddle]

Sheldonsmom, in your case no one was forcing some procedure on you. You always had the right to reject whatever option was presented. It was your choice to seek a different practitioner.

 

Your example is one in which you wanted NOT to have a particular treatment. That is different from a case in which might want a medical treatment but because the doctor was opposed on his personal religious grounds, he chose not to tell you about that option. In your case you were fully informed and you did have the right to make the best choice for your life based on your personal needs and religious beliefs. Why would you deny that right to another patient?

[evmori]

Ed, I can't debate the topic if someone feels free to make up what I would say and falsely ascribe that to me.

 

Actually, Merlyn, what was posted was based on your past behavior and accurate.

[Beavah]

Can't work on Sundays, can't work in any retail clothing (mixing fabrics and such).

 

Must be tough on you, eh? Can't deal with people of different beliefs without resortin' to ridicule.

 

I'm actually sympathetic to this idea if the physician clearly advertises up front that he will DENY full access to legal medical care.

 

Nice spin. Of course, da last time I checked one physician can't "deny" full access to legal medical care, eh? Guess honest assessment ain't part of da scientific mindset.

 

Sheldonsmom actually wanted a physician who shared her beliefs when confrontin' a medical problem where those beliefs were in play. You feel da government should deny access to da medical care she wanted, or perhaps da only medical care she was willin' to accept.

 

Actually, Merlyn, what was posted was based on your past behavior and accurate.

 

But we can give yeh da chance to clarify. Are you really sayin' that your position is not da same as DanKroh's? You wouldn't in fact say that if a physician or hospital accepts government money, they have to provide all authorized services to everyone? And that if they're a Christian and don't believe in providin' a particular service that they either have to give up their belief (aka "convert") or give up that career (since in many areas of medicine, private practice is unable to compete with da government)?

 

In other words, you'd finance da opposition to the ACLU's suit in this matter? I can provide an address for organizations litigatin' the opposite side for yeh.

 

Or was I actually right about your position, and not lyin' at all?

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Actually, Merlyn, what was posted was based on your past behavior and accurate.

 

No it wasn't Ed, Beavah made up something and claimed it's what I would say.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes, quoting Ed at first:

Actually, Merlyn, what was posted was based on your past behavior and accurate.

 

But we can give yeh da chance to clarify.

 

Beavah, "clarify" means explaining a statement *I HAVE MADE*

 

You do NOT get to make up crap, claim it's something I *WOULD* say, and then ASK ME TO CLARIFY SOMETHING I HAVE NOT SAID.

 

Are you really sayin' that your position is not da same as DanKroh's?

 

No, you idiot. I haven't SAID what my position is.

 

But this does not prevent you from making up crap about me and what I "would" say.

 

You wouldn't in fact say that if a physician or hospital accepts government money, they have to provide all authorized services to everyone? And that if they're a Christian and don't believe in providin' a particular service that they either have to give up their belief (aka "convert") or give up that career (since in many areas of medicine, private practice is unable to compete with da government)?

 

In other words, you'd finance da opposition to the ACLU's suit in this matter? I can provide an address for organizations litigatin' the opposite side for yeh.

 

Or was I actually right about your position, and not lyin' at all?

 

Beavah, YOU WERE LYING. YOU MADE UP SOMETHING AND CLAIMED IT WAS SOMETHING I "WOULD" SAY.

 

But you don't appear to understand this.

 

You don't discuss issues honestly. It's pointless to try if you are going to continue to be dishonest and "give me a chance" to clarify STATEMENTS I NEVER MADE.

[packsaddle]

"...da last time I checked one physician can't "deny" full access to legal medical care, eh?"

We just need to keep it that way.

 

"And that if they're a Christian and don't believe in providin' a particular service that they either have to give up their belief (aka "convert")..."

weren't you just talking about spin? I'm in awe...

No, they just have to provide the service. Nothing about that requires one iota of lost beliefs or so-called 'conversion'. It just requires providing to paying customers whatever medical care those customers choose. Otherwise,

 

"...or give up that career..." if they can't choke down the idea of providing full access to legal medical care? Sure. That would be the physician's choice. If he chooses not to provide full access perhaps he SHOULD be doing something else. Perhaps the clergy.

[Beavah]

Merlyn, once yeh get over your sophomoric rant, you'll recognize da quote as a rhetorical device, and the claim made bein' exactly the same as the one I just posted which you do not deny. I'm goin' back to talkin' with packsaddle now, because you aren't worth the powder.

 

No, they just have to provide the service. Nothing about that requires one iota of lost beliefs or so-called 'conversion'.

 

Procuring or assisting in da procurement of an abortion is an automatic excommunication for a Catholic. Sure sounds like a lost belief or forced conversion to me. Give up your religion, or give up your livelihood.

 

Yeh sure your name isn't Joseph?

 

"...or give up that career..." That would be the physician's choice. If he chooses not to provide full access perhaps he SHOULD be doing something else.

 

Once again, yeh haven't demonstrated how a physician's refusal to perform a procedure somehow causes a lack of "full access" to care. You've only demonstrated your willingness to confine people with religious beliefs different than your own to lower wage careers and reduced economic access.

 

And you would deny full access to care to those with beliefs different than your own who want to be treated by a physician who shares their belief. Maybe because, like sheldonsmom, they don't trust others, eh (and for good reason)? You're happy to have fewer people seein' doctors so long as you can control da beliefs of the docs.

 

That makes for sound public health policy, fer sure.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Merlyn, once yeh get over your sophomoric rant,

 

Pointing out that you're lying isn't a "sophomoric rant."

 

you'll recognize da quote as a rhetorical device, and the claim made bein' exactly the same as the one I just posted which you do not deny.

 

And which I don't affirm, either. But that doesn't stop you from just making up crap.

 

I'm goin' back to talkin' with packsaddle now, because you aren't worth the powder.

 

Tired of trying (and failing) to justify your pathetic lying? I'm not surprised.