Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: The right to conscience

  1. #1 The right to conscience 
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    The Bush junta has sneaked in a new "Right to Conscience" rule that will allow ANY health worker to refuse treatment based on religious belief. This means the clerk at Walmart who refuses to sell you the legal prescription for AIDS because it is God's punishment to the gay.

    While the Obama admin is "discussing" how this rule will be overturned, Obama has invited the [in]famous Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural invocation. Rick Warren is known for his modal civility in rights issues, which he embraces by comparing homosexuality to pedophilia.

    Are civil rights becoming fuzzy in American society?

    What are the reasons for this downturn, at a time when the nation has elected its first black President?


    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    24
    I believe that rule only applies to institutions that recieve government money. Also I think it was created for healthcare workers who object things like abortion, artificial insemination (sp?), sex changes etc. But thats not to say that people wont exploit and abuse that rule. Either way I was unaware that healthcare workers were actually required to preform those procedures, I thought they were only required to preform life saving procedures which Im pretty sure sex changes and artificial insemination dont fall under. The subject of patient rights vs worker rights has been an issue for a while now I dont think it has much to do with a black president being elected but who knows.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    The most insidious change brought about by this law is this: previously, a person who, for various reasons was against a medical procedure [like removing the ventilator of a terminal patient who had signed a DNR request], that person could make their excuses to their supervisor, who was obliged to be aware of this. The supervisor could then assign some other person to fulfill this procedure. Now, this requirement no longer required, and the supervisor need not be informed. So, for example, a rape victim can be denied morning after pill and not given recourse to another person who would fulfill her requirements.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Elen
    I believe that rule only applies to institutions that recieve government money.
    Which would include any doctor's office or hospital that has a single Medicare patient. What about Walgreen's Pharmacy, that fills Medicare customer prescriptions?

    This is a spiteful action designed to hurt those who can afford it least, and to embarrass the Obama administration in its fiirst weeks.

    I am so sick of that shithead jerk in the White House.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    I am an advocate of our US Constitution as not only a representative legal document but also as a substitute for religion.

    It outlaws the OT and its hate promotion and makes a good substitute for religion because it outlaws sexism, racism and promotes equality of its citizenships.

    Of course, the later Amendments are among the most important and must be included in this endorsement .

    So I want to emphacize that its provision of 'Separation of Church and State' should be observed and honored.
    So my advice to these religious fanatics is RESPECt our Constitution as written.
    You are NOT gods.

    WHILE WRITING THIS REPLY, A RELIGIPOUS CRAZY JUST CUT OFF MY POWER TO MY MONITER AND i HAD TO SIT THIS OUT FOR 15 MINUTES.
    tHIS SAME CRAZY DID LIKEWISE ON ANOTHER WEBSITE.
    i HAVE BEEN HAVING TROUBLE WITH THESZAE HACKERS FOR A LONG TIME BUT WILL CONTINUE TO POST MY VERSION OF TRUTH.

    IF HE KEEPS UP, I WILL BE EXPOSING THE OT ALL THE MORE FOR ITS EVILS.

    COSMO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The right to conscience seems like a good idea to me. Must everybody conform to your moral code? Yeah, I know. They can get out of the healthcare business if they don't like it, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    What about the right of an employer to hire or fire his employees? The engineering firm I work for does billions in government contracts. I work mainly on the non-governmental side in oil and gas. If I'm assigned to a project that I object to, for instance building an oil facility in a wilderness area, I have the right to refuse to work on it. That's my right of conscience. The firm also has the right to fire me because I'm no longer of value to them. The government cannot tell my employer not to fire me. That's the way it works in the market place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    The right to conscience seems like a good idea to me. Must everybody conform to your moral code? Yeah, I know. They can get out of the healthcare business if they don't like it, right?
    I'd prefer that if I had an accident, my Jehovah's Witness nurse was able to look beyond his beliefs and allow me a blood transfusion.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    I am not familiar with the details but I would assume that the supervisor maintains the right to fire. Is this not the case?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    OK to those that think your right to conscience is justified but what about the military personell?
    They have no say in this and they should not have any say.

    So the RtC should NOT be allowed. If anyone does not like any part of his service to the people or customers they are supposed to serve, than find ANOTHER job.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    I am not familiar with the details but I would assume that the supervisor maintains the right to fire. Is this not the case?
    Thats what this law addresses. The right not to be fired for not doing your job because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. I'm a theist and in the healthcare profession and I think its extremely ridiculous. Its like a fireman becoming a fireworshipper and claiming its against his belief to save people from the vengeance of the fire god.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    I am not familiar with the details but I would assume that the supervisor maintains the right to fire. Is this not the case?
    The proposed regulation is here:

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pr...0080821reg.pdf

    I seems that the crux if the matter is in the definition of "workforce" and "entity". The former is defined below:

    Workforce: We propose to define “workforce” as including employees, volunteers, trainees, and other persons whose conduct, in the performance of work for an entity, is under the control or authority of such entity, whether or not they are paid by the Department-funded entity.
    The latter seems to be defined open-endedly, see the bolded sentence below, and therefore is subject to interpretation initially by employers and supervisors, and eventually in the courts:

    In keeping with the definitions in PHS Act § 245 and the Weldon Amendment, the Department proposes to define “health care entity” to include the specifically mentioned organizations from the two statutes, as well as other types of entities referenced in the Church Amendments. It is important to note that the Department does not intend for this to be a comprehensive list of relevant organizations for purposes of the regulation, but merely a list of examples.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    The right not to be fired for not doing your job because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
    If a theist refuses to do their job based on their religious beliefs, they should be promptly fired and asked to seek reparations from their god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    One could spend years training to be a health care professional, enter the health care field and find later that advances in medicine allow practices that promote health but that are understandably objectionable.It need not deal with abortion, the issue could surround xenotransplantation, chip implants, DNA typing, any number of things that philosophically challenge human identity.

    It seems to me that any regulation should not be retroactive, but perhaps apply to new hires or some such, example when applying for a position the expectations are explicit one way or the other along these lines. If you have any emotional reaction to the idea of, as one example, receiving a baboon heart in order to reduce some cardiac disease, then it is understandable why some health care professionals might face dilemmas of conscience.

    As an alternative argument for some middle ground on this issue, would you want a surgeon operating on you under duress.

    Right to conscience seems practical to me, both on the giving and receiving end, tho right to health care should not be compromised in the process. Some sort of certification process seems like a good starting point for compromise. I admit I am not familiar with the intricacies of US healthcare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Then are you pleading special consideration for health care entities as opposed to any other area of business? I gave an example of the engineering business above. Engineers also spend years training and learning their professions and would be similarly conflicted when having to make such choices. But the government does not rpotect them from being fired.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    If I were to object to a certain type of research my supervisor would typically work with me to allow me to circumvent the issue. I have been fortunate to work in collaborative environments, and when I have become uncomfortable (an early job some years back involved using dogs as a model organism) I have left to find other work. The discomfort I felt, informed my later career choices, but even within the confines of that particular job there was enough cooperation that others would be willing to take on the less pleasant aspects of the work.

    I would hope that sort of cooperation was not limited to basic research. But it seems relevant that there are very few controversial new techniques being used today that were not being used 30 years ago, stem cell research being the only example I can think of at the mo and that is only applicable to a small branch of science.

    Perhaps the pace of new (and controversial) technique development in medicine is faster than in other fields, and the emotional response is perhaps a bit more marked, as a generality, since humans are the subject. You knew when you took your job that the possibility of developing oil exploration in wilderness areas was a possibility. I do not know if medical researchers would have reasonably known the dilemmas they would be facing when they started their careers 15 or so years back.

    I do not know what I believe about this recent hullabaloo, but isn't Obama supposed to plan to overturn it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman The Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    56
    Obama said the first thing he would do as President is sign the "Freedom of Choice Act". For those of you who are unfamiliar:

    • The Freedom of Choice Act is a bill in the United States Congress which, if enacted, would abolish all restrictions and limitations on women in the United States to have an abortion prior to fetal viability, whether at the State or Federal level, or after the point of viability when the life of the mother is endangered.


    (Wikipedia)

    Under the "Freedom of Choice Act", parents would not have to be notified if their daughter was undergoing an abortion. What many people fail to realize is the enactment of this bill would render all votes against abortion obsolete. It is unconstitutional to make this particular issue, of all issues, a federal affair. The states which have voted to restrict abortion should be respected and left to themselves.

    Is Obama's extreme left-wing stance any more palatable than Bush's "Right to Conscience"? Besides, Bush's proposal, if followed, can only hurt the companies which choose to exercise it. Religious principles are often pushed aside when the prospect of business is encountered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    the Department does not intend for this to be a comprehensive list of relevant organizations for purposes of the regulation, but merely a list of examples.
    What a disaster. I agree with Bunbury. This is a setup. They aim to lure the next administration into a bad position with some headline melodrama. Crazy Obama wants to rip your grandma off life support. He wants crackheads ahead of you in pharmacy lineups. The possibilities are endless.

    Wear loose shoes.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Then are you pleading special consideration for health care entities as opposed to any other area of business? I gave an example of the engineering business above. Engineers also spend years training and learning their professions and would be similarly conflicted when having to make such choices. But the government does not rpotect them from being fired.
    The government money is what open the door to these kinds of regulations. A college that doesn't accept federal money doesn't need to follow federal rules on affirmative action either. So, if you want socialized medicine, this is the way it's going to be. You won't always agree with the regulations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    The tyranny of the righteous.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    I agree with Obama
    Abortion and 'volentary Euthanasia are personal decisions for family and spouses.

    Abortions are 30 times safer than carrying to term.
    This decision should be left to the women only.

    Volentary Euthanasia should be left to the individual involved and if he/she cannot make a decision, than to the spouses and family.

    Nature commits WHOLESALE post abortions.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    if you want socialized medicine, this is the way it's going to be.
    Your northern cousin says, "Not necessarily."

    ***

    The reality of voluntary euthanasia, in Canada. It's normal, and basically unreported. Emergency wards receive people already dependent on various medicines, portable oxygen, etc. who are basically dying of old age. So we tube these people up to keep them nominally alive, while relatives anguish over the inevitable. It's a limbo state. Staff present the options, odds, and consequences. Perhaps if this is the first time we might see enough recovery to release a patient. Otherwise we keep aunt Martha plugged in while her niece flies from Atlanta. One last squeeze of a lukewarm hand.

    Then we stop medicating and assisting, and let happen what would have naturally happened years ago.

    Everybody working in a hospital knows the drill. There isn't much room for "conscientious objection".
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    If I were to object to a certain type of research my supervisor would typically work with me to allow me to circumvent the issue. I have been fortunate to work in collaborative environments
    I'm in the same situation. My example was hypothetical, but surely possible.

    My worry, as always with this current administration is the unspoken agenda. The definitions are vague enough that it opens the door to, for example, the possibility of people who are against freedom of choice for women applying to work at abortion clinics and the employer being unable to deny employment on the grounds that the applicant is not willing to do the work that the position requires. I don't know if this is a realistic legal possibility, but I have no doubt that the Bush administration would like that to be the effect of this regulation.

    I do not know what I believe about this recent hullabaloo, but isn't Obama supposed to plan to overturn it?
    I understand there is already legislation in the works courtesy of Ms. Clinton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Mmmm, perhaps she would have been an even better prospect than Mr. Obama, what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Mmmm, perhaps she would have been an even better prospect than Mr. Obama, what?
    You Brits have such quaint expressions -what?

    :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    How long would it be before the refusal to work on Sunday becomes a legal right of all workers?

    I'd prefer a rule that did the opposite of this one: required all prospective employees to formally declare their religious restrictions when applying for medical jobs, so their employers could avoid the issue all together by not hiring them in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    One could spend years training to be a health care professional, enter the health care field and find later that advances in medicine allow practices that promote health but that are understandably objectionable.It need not deal with abortion, the issue could surround xenotransplantation, chip implants, DNA typing, any number of things that philosophically challenge human identity.

    It seems to me that any regulation should not be retroactive, but perhaps apply to new hires or some such, example when applying for a position the expectations are explicit one way or the other along these lines. If you have any emotional reaction to the idea of, as one example, receiving a baboon heart in order to reduce some cardiac disease, then it is understandable why some health care professionals might face dilemmas of conscience.
    True they might, but that should be their problem, not the problem of their patients.

    Any form of religious conviction must be accompanied by an equal and opposite willingness to bear the full burden of any sacrifice demanded by the faith toward which one is committed on one's own shoulders exclusively. An absolute zero amount of sacrifice should ever be demanded from those not of your faith, ever, no matter what.

    It's your faith. You pay the price. I'd rather one guy lose his job than another guy lose his life, or some girl have to bear a rape baby.



    As an alternative argument for some middle ground on this issue, would you want a surgeon operating on you under duress.
    No sensible hospital would keep a person on staff who was seen as likely to perform badly due to religious convictions. You don't need a law to ensure that. It's already assured.

    A law requiring a surgeon to declare his/her concerns, so that their superiors could decide whether to assign them to that task would get the job done just as well, or better.


    Right to conscience seems practical to me, both on the giving and receiving end, tho right to health care should not be compromised in the process. Some sort of certification process seems like a good starting point for compromise. I admit I am not familiar with the intricacies of US healthcare.
    If you take the price away from religious conscience, what is left? What does conviction mean to be religious if it never costs anything?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •