In the United States, we have wilderness recreation areas and deserts that aren’t much smaller than the entire island of Ireland. Such sparsely populated big open land is disproportionately found in the very states that are most likely to be home to doctors who would refuse emergency contraception, birth control in general to unmarried people, abortion info, abortion services, etc etc.
Just going to another doctor could easily mean “Drive 2500 miles and hope that the doctor you find there isn’t of a similar mind”.
As I understand it, the hypothetical Muslim was hired to sell hot dogs. If he refuses to perform some small but significant part of that job on the basis of personal morals, I have no problem with him being fired and replaced by someone who is willing to perform all of the required duties. Let the Muslim seek employment elsewhere that better suits his beliefs.
The doctor is being hired to provide medical care. If he refuses to perform some small but significant part of that job on the basis of personal morals, I have no problem with him being fired and replaced by someone who is will to perform all the required duties. Let the doctor seek employment elsewhere that better suits his beliefs.
I don’t care if to a particular doctor the 0.001 % of his time his job requires him to perform abortions sends him into a suicidal depression - if he refuses to perform all his duties, his employer is free to replace him.
It struck me as a little on the high side, too. I can imagine 250 miles, but 2500 is only plausible (barely) if an Alaska woman has to drive to the lower 48.
The doctor wasn’t hired to “be a doctor”. After all, he could satisfy that requirement by just sitting his office all day playing Minesweeper. Rather he was hired to provide medical care to his patients. If he refuses to perform abortions or set broken legs or treat drug overdoses or any other procedure that his employer wants to provide, I figure the doctor and the employer should either make arrangements or part ways, but in no event should the employer just have to put up with it.
Only in scope, and in the language — if you refuse to perform a service because you morally or religiously object, you are protected, says this proposal (or so we assume; we haven’t got the text of it).
The reason why I draw this parallel is to get at the heart of the intent of the law. Is it about morals? Or is it about abortion? Let’s look:
If I understand the thread properly, this applies only medical professionals, and only to refusing a service. That means if you elect to perform a service because you feel strongly about it: no protection. An abortion doctor could be fired for doing an abortion, but he’s protected if he refuses.
Nope, sounds like it’s not about morals to me. Sounds like it’s about abortion. And the wording sounds vague enough that it could be applied to other hot-button topics, like pulling the plug on a terminal patient (like a Terri Shiavo; now the doc refuse to pull the plug). It also doesn’t protect a doctor who performs assisted suicide.
Well, if you don’t have a car and you can’t find someone to watch the four kids you already have and your minimum-wage employer isn’t inclined to let you take the extra time off, then a six-hour drive becomes a major problem.
I trust you could’ve figured this out on your own, but had some personal motive to be childish about it.
As a med student myself, I know a lot of ob/gyns. Of the ones I know, almost none of them want to do elective abortions (though of course they all treat ectopic pregnancies - turns out docs are usually sharp folks who can grasp the fine distinction between an elective abortion and a life-saving emergency).
A lot of ob/gyn docs already choose not to perform obstetrics because of the high malpractice insurance premiums (and the inevitability of getting sued if you practice in such a field where bad outcomes can easily occur even if the doc does nothing wrong). Funny how nobody has suggested forcing these docs to perform obstetrics, when that is not even a moral choice of theirs (just a business decision).
If you limited the field of ob/gyn to only those who want to perform elective abortions, you would be reducing the pool of available obstetricians even more than the above business factors already have. Since docs are generally independent people who don’t like being told what to do by others (especially others who have never worked a day in medicine and don’t really understand what docs do), you’d probably have less going into ob/gyn just based on personal autonomy reasons even if they didn’t object to abortion.
That would then place a burden on women trying to get care for their wanted pregnancies. Are those women less important than women who want abortions? You’d also be reducing the providers available for other specialized services that doctors with ob/gyn training provide such as care to women with ovarian cancer or cervical cancer (cases where a delay in being able to obtain treatment due to a lack of providers could truly mean the difference in life or death). Are those women less important than those wanting abortions?
So you wind up with an unwanted pregnancy in some rural Alaskan town where none of the docs have chosen to put a glowing neon “Yay! Abortions For Everyone!” sign up in their windows? Well, I guess that means you made a poor decision in life. That doesn’t mean anyone else is responsible for that decision. Just like I don’t feel sorry for a man who puts himself in a bad situation and then demands that everyone else do something to accommodate that poor decision, I hold women to the same standard.
I’d actually expect fertility doctors to have a higher incidence of religious conservatives than other types of health care providers, as many religions place a strong emphasis on large families. Us godless liberals tend towards single-child families, or no children at all, so fertility treatments aren’t as important to us.
Which decision? To be born in or continue to live in a rural Alaskan town? Choosing a job that doesn’t pay enough (and not being able to afford to travel)? Not foreseeing an unwanted pregnancy? Picking one type of birth control over another (or none at all)? Not wanting more children, or any at all? This is a little vague.
Ah, one of the favorite arguments of those who oppsoe abortion : “The slut should have kept her legs shut. Serves her right. Maybe the pregnancy will go bad and the bitch will die; we can only hope”
Because the alternative is a patchwork medical field where you roll the dice every time you see a doctor that he won’t let you suffer or die for his “morals”.
They need special protection so they can do things like condemn a woman with a pregnancy gone wrong to suffering or death in the name of morality and get away with it. So they can refuse to provide medical care and hide behind the law. That’s been part of the anti-abortion movement’s, and the Christian Right’s goals for many years; to punish and kill people by denying them medical care. And, that’s WHY a doctor with such an attitude would enter such a field; to deny women the care they need.
How is it fair to treat women as cattle, as brood animals ?
Actually from what I understand it’s a common problem for lesbians. And if God demanded hatred of old women, no doubt getting plastic surgery would be hard for them too.
Oh ? How about anti-AIDS drugs ? Gotta help God kill those nasty gays. How about insulin for diabetes ? Obviously God’s Wrath. What about painkillers ? Don’t want to interfere with God tormenting the sinners. And so on. And I note that you unsurprisingly are using a variation of the “punish the sluts” argument opposing abortion with “a minority of people who choose to live in the sticks and not wear a f***ing condom”.
Any doctor who refuses to perform an abortion when that’s part of his specialty, and any pharmacist who refuses to dispense drugs for “moral” reasons should be permanently banned from the medical field. They are unethical and a danger to their patients.
Never heard that it was a big problem. Learn something new every day.
It’s not a matter of ‘punishing’ anyone. It’s not my responsibility to absolve you of the responsibility for your own actions, nor should it be the Doctor’s responsibility, it’s yours pure and simple.
They aren’t a danger to their patients. They just are choosing not to help absolve the patient of responsibility for their own actions. Let them go find a different Doctor. Though, if the Doctor works for a hospital their employer should be free to fire them.
Make that 500 miles? My point remains: Many of America’s “red states” are big open sparsely populated areas wherein doctors of any flavor may be in mildly short supply and “try a different doctor” more than a minor inconvenience.
Well not that specifically, but the availability of Goods and Services is why I live in NYC and not SD.
Basically, I don’t think that the entire populace should have to serve under a special circumstance that only applies to the extreme outliers of the population.
You are, when you try to force women to have unwanted children ( or die in the process ).
It’s the doctor’s JOB to do what he’s been trained, hired and paid to do. Not to make judgements about who deserves his care and not.
And yes, this is ALL about punishing women. Both for not being celibate, and for being women.
IF they can. And yes, refusing someone medical care can easily be dangerous, or fatal. That’s the point of refusing to provide it; to hurt or kill the patients you disapprove of.
No it is to give them disproportionate representation. What you’re talking about is hte opposite, having the majority states impose their views on the minority ones. I see no good argument
Der Trihs You have a problem with understanding fundamental premises here. No one is FORCING anyone to have a baby. In fact you are talking about FORCING someone to murder someone. You’re the one advocating force. I am advocating a right to passivity. The Doctor didn’t force her to nail her redneck boyfriend in the back of his pickup in South Dakota without a condom. She made that choice on her own. He’s not stopping her from driving to Minneapolis for her abortion, if she can’t do it, that is due to her circumstances, and is not his responsibility. You’re the one advocating force and the restriction of people’s rights.
The Doctor wasn’t trained and hired to commit murder. ‘First do no harm.’ You have heard of the hippocratic oath right?
However, if it is medically necessary that’s one thing, but generally people are not refused treatment if it is medically necessary. That’s a strawman from your side of the debate in the same way that the idea of people running out for third trimester abortions is a strawman from the other direction. The Pro-Life side generally wants to save the life of the Mother because if she dies so does the baby, so there isn’t a whole lot of benefit in not saving her life.
As for whether or not she can get to a Doctor, that’s complete and total bullshit. My In-Laws live far from a serious hospital in Texas, they have to be airlifted in the event of a life-threatening emergency, which is generally how it works when you live far afield. If it were seriously a life-threatening condition the person could have a helicopter from the city come and airlift her to a hospital. You’re just creating strawmen to support your argument by conjuring a false dilemma.