President Trump & the USA

[Rogstanley]

Just now, Webbo said:

My wife used to work on the Deli counter at ASDA, some of the Indian women on there refused to touch the sliced meat because they were vegetarian. None of them got sacked.

Have any doctors been sacked for refusing to perform abortions?

 

Judge things on what they are, not what they could be.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm not totally against abortion. Up to a certain point, say 20 weeks I don't have a problem. I do believe in freedom of conscience though.

 

If someone is pro life it's not likely that they'd apply for a job in an abortion clinic so it's hardly likely to be a large amount of people.It's the "I don't care what you believe, do this or you're sacked" I object to. 

I generally have the same issue about people being forced to act against their beliefs - quite against the left wing consensus at times - but drs and nurses choose a profession and specialise knowing what's involved. Refusing to treat a transgender person should absolutely not be allowed. 

[Webbo]

10 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Have any doctors been sacked for refusing to perform abortions?

 

Judge things on what they are, not what they could be.

The article we were talking about said;

Quote

Trump plans new protections for health workers who refuse to perform abortions, treat transgender patients:

So the threat of the sack is obviously there.

 

When I said"what they could be I was quoting Mac.

 

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The bill would protect those who have "moral objections to performing abortions or treating transgender patients".

 

That sounds like it could be extended to treatment of a life-saving condition if the patient is trans, as well as refusing abortions even if the life of the mother is threatened to me.

 

It's a broad envelope of protection which IMO deliberately makes room for the above ideas - and please don't say that it would never happen, we both know there are folks in the US that think like that, even if such would be a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

I wish you were Moosebreath sometimes, at least I'd have got a decent argument.

 

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I generally have the same issue about people being forced to act against their beliefs - quite against the left wing consensus at times - but drs and nurses choose a profession and specialise knowing what's involved. Refusing to treat a transgender person should absolutely not be allowed. 

Treating a transgender person for an illness or injury? Absolutely they should, they shouldn't be forced to be involved in the sex change itself though if they don't believe in it.

[theessexfox]

Why on earth would you be working in the abortion clinic if you were anti-abortion?

[Carl the Llama]

I think Webbo's being the fairest on this one.  Imo if a fundie Christian nurse is on duty when a post-op trans patient is admitted to the treatment room they should be allowed to tag out for another available nurse if they feel that personally providing aid to that person will anger their definition of God.  I would add though that if no other professional is available to provide treatment at that time then the conscientious objector absolutely should be made to perform their job under threat of dismissal for breaking their Hippocratic oath.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think Webbo's being the fairest on this one.  Imo if a fundie Christian nurse is on duty when a post-op trans patient is admitted to the treatment room they should be allowed to tag out for another available nurse if they feel that personally providing aid to that person will anger their definition of God.  I would add though that if no other professional is available to provide treatment at that time then the conscientious objector absolutely should be made to perform their job under threat of dismissal for breaking their Hippocratic oath.

I may have originally misunderstood the transgender bit. I meant that somebody should have the right not to be involved in the transformation bit, by that I mean a Doctor shouldn't be forced to prescribe the hormone treatment/refer them to surgeon etc. If a transgender person is injured or suffering a serious illness then they should treat them, no exceptions.

[Carl the Llama]

19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I may have originally misunderstood the transgender bit. I meant that somebody should have the right not to be involved in the transformation bit, by that I mean a Doctor shouldn't be forced to prescribe the hormone treatment/refer them to surgeon etc. If a transgender person is injured or suffering a serious illness then they should treat them, no exceptions.

I only mean it in a sense that if you can accommodate the person's superstitions without any impact on service, ie. if John's in the next room not doing anything, then I don't see the harm in doing so.  If they refuse to do their job full stop they should face reprisals like any other employee.  Similarly I'd expect the aforementioned Indian deli assistants to handle my meat if they're the only staff on shift that day.  Obviously in an ideal world people wouldn't use sky fairies as an excuse to avoid treating other people like human beings.

Edited 19 January 2018 by Carl the Llama

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42757091

 

Controlling the Senate, House and Executive wings of government and still the government gets shut down. That's some effort, right there.

[Jattdogg]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42757091

 

Controlling the Senate, House and Executive wings of government and still the government gets shut down. That's some effort, right there.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/954372473138577414/video/1

 

Is he going to call this fake news?

[Guest FriendlyRam]

Hes just plain useless

 

He cant lead to save his life can he. And hes actually bragging about nearly getting a deal done ffs, hes the most useless president in history imo, even nixon wasnt this daft.

[Guest]

US Congress asks if Russian money funded Trump golf courses

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/20/trump-golf-courses-scotland-ireland-enormous-amounts-capital-from-unknown-sources?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42765101

 

The shutdown and assorted finger-pointing continues. Trump blamed Obama for the last one...wonder who he'll blame for this one?

[Merging Cultures]

There are enough American Doctors for people to find one that works for them. They are private enterprises. If a Doctor doesn't want to do it, go somewhere else and give them your money. In the UK, it's paid for by the government, so they should do what the law says - or go work in a private hospital/practice.

[Bryn]

Actually theoretically that change in US law would bring them closer in line with our legislation. In law UK doctors are allowed to object to abortion, certainly elective ones. They are, however, ethically obliged not to do anything which would cause the patient moral distress and would also be obliged to signpost the patient to someone who would counsel them and help them proceed to abortion. However, the grey areas of that law are being increasingly squeezed by pro-choice campaigning, with a common argument being that even merely explaining to a patient an objection to abortion before referring to another practitioner could cause moral distress and therefore be hard to defend.

I would have to do some research to know for sure but I suspect any practitioner who refused to take part in an abortion and in doing so delayed treatment which saved the life or limb of the mother or child would be on extremely thin ice and liable to prosecution and fitness to practice proceedings.

Regarding transgender people, I cannot imagine why anyone would refuse to treat a transgender person merely for being transgender. In this country I can't imagine that being legal in any context and I think in terms of referral for any kind of gender reassignment treatment I think a clinician would be expected to adhere to local and national guidelines.

Edited 21 January 2018 by Bryn

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Bryn said:

Actually theoretically that change in US law would bring them closer in line with our legislation. In law UK doctors are allowed to object to abortion, certainly elective ones. They are, however, ethically obliged not to do anything which would cause the patient moral distress and would also be obliged to signpost the patient to someone who would counsel them and help them proceed to abortion. However, the grey areas of that law are being increasingly squeezed by pro-choice campaigning, with a common argument being that even merely explaining to a patient an objection to abortion before referring to another practitioner could cause moral distress and therefore be hard to defend.

I would have to do some research to know for sure but I suspect any practitioner who refused to take part in an abortion and in doing so delayed treatment which saved the life or limb of the mother or child would be on extremely thin ice and liable to prosecution and fitness to practice proceedings.

Regarding transgender people, I cannot imagine why anyone would refuse to treat a transgender person merely for being transgender. In this country I can't imagine that being legal in any context and I think in terms of referral for any kind of gender reassignment treatment I think a clinician would be expected to adhere to local and national guidelines.

3

In the UK that's most likely the case.

 

In the US...I'm not so sure, especially in various areas where the evangelicals run the show.

[Bryn]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

In the UK that's most likely the case.

 

In the US...I'm not so sure, especially in various areas where the evangelicals run the show.

 

Emphasises their absence of logic. A not insignificant number of people referred to transgender services dont transition after counselling. If someone, especially a Christian with their emphasis on "forgiveness and reconciliation", really believe it's evil the logical thing to do is refer them for "treatment" and close your mind to what that means.

Edited 21 January 2018 by Bryn

[Jattdogg]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42765101

 

The shutdown and assorted finger-pointing continues. Trump blamed Obama for the last one...wonder who he'll blame for this one?

My bet is on Obama and his previous administration who led us to this path blah blah.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Bryn said:

 

Emphasises their absence of logic. A not insignificant number of people referred to transgender services dont transition after counselling. If someone, especially a Christian with their emphasis on "forgiveness and reconciliation", really believe it's evil the logical thing to do is refer them for "treatment" and close your mind to what that means.

Yeah.

 

Like I said before, most of the evangelists would likely be happy with making sure that the only way out a trans person has is the Leelah Alcorn one.

 

1 minute ago, Jattdogg said:

My bet is on Obama and his previous administration who led us to this path blah blah.

Not taking that bet, odds are way too short.

[Mike Oxlong]

[Fox Ulike]

On ‎19‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 21:10, Carl the Llama said:

I only mean it in a sense that if you can accommodate the person's superstitions without any impact on service, ie. if John's in the next room not doing anything, then I don't see the harm in doing so.  If they refuse to do their job full stop they should face reprisals like any other employee.  Similarly I'd expect the aforementioned Indian deli assistants to handle my meat if they're the only staff on shift that day.  Obviously in an ideal world people wouldn't use sky fairies as an excuse to avoid treating other people like human beings.

It's a where-do-you-draw-the-line issue though isn't it.

 

Allowing medical professionals to refuse any type of medical service for trans-gender people is conceding to their prejudices.

 

If you allow this, then WDYDTL?

 

Should fundie muslims doctors be allowed to refuse to treat women?

Should white supremacist doctors be allowed to refuse to treat immigrants?

Should liberal doctors be allowed to refuse to treat racists?

 

And if Doctors don't have to treat trans-gender people, surely you have to extend that allowance to other professions? Should you be allowed to refuse to serve TGs in a restaurant? Refuse them to stay in your hotel if it conflicts with your own particular version of the sky fairies?

 

its a a slippery slope. The US constitution says that everyone is created equal. They should remember this.

 

 

Edited 22 January 2018 by Fox Ulike

[Carl the Llama]

19 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

It's a where-do-you-draw-the-line issue though isn't it.

 

Allowing medical professionals to refuse any type of medical care for trans-gender people is conceding to their prejudices.

 

If you allow this, then WDYDTL?

 

Should fundie muslims doctors be allowed to refuse to treat women?

Should white supremacist doctors be allowed to refuse to treat immigrants?

 

And if Doctors don't have to treat trans-gender people, surely you have to extend that allowance to other professions? Should you be allowed to refuse to serve TGs in a restaurant? Refuse them to stay in your hotel if it conflicts with your own particular version of the sky fairies?

 

its a a slippery slope. The US constitution says that everyone is created equal. They should remember this.

 

 

Not slippery at all.  If the person's superstitions can be accommodated with no impact on patient care then there's no problem imo, but if it's even mildly inconvenient to get an alternative medical professional in then the person in question either foregoes their superstition or finds themselves being banned from the profession.  Ie. if you're a GP and you make a person wait, say, more than 5 extra minutes for another GP in the surgery then you're done, if you're in an A&E you don't even get a minute before you're barred for being a shitty medical professional and person in general (bearing in mind you could start emergency treatment and have somebody called over ready to tag in when medically appropriate - if no such person is available, tough shit, take it up with your fairy later).  I think it's clear we're talking about religious superstition here, no need bringing irrelevancies like racists into the equation.

 

As for restaurants etc, I think any business owner should be legally reserved the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs but I don't think they'd be morally right to do so and they should expect to lose out to market forces once their customers learn how distastefully they choose to run their business.

Edited 22 January 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Fox Ulike]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Not slippery at all.  If the person's superstitions can be accommodated with no impact on patient care then there's no problem imo, but if it's even mildly inconvenient to get an alternative medical professional in then the person in question either foregoes their superstition or finds themselves being banned from the profession.  Ie. if you're a GP and you make a person wait 5 more minutes for another GP in the surgery then you're done, if you're in an A&E you don't even get a minute before you're barred for being a shitty medical professional and person in general (bearing in mind you could start emergency treatment and have somebody called over ready to tag in when medically appropriate).  I think it's clear we're talking about religious superstition here, no need bringing irrelevancies like racists into the equation.

 

As for restaurants etc, I think any business owner should be legally reserved the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs but I don't think they'd be morally right to do so and they should expect to lose out to market forces once their customers learn how distastefully they choose to run their business.

OK. Then do you allow people to legally refuse to serve gay or black people too?

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

OK. Then do you allow people to legally refuse to serve gay or black people too?

Gays, legally, yes.  Morally, of course not and I repeat that they should expect to see their business struggle as a result once word gets out.

 

As far as I'm aware there's no centuries old book claiming that being black is a sin so obviously that one has no morally dubious religious loophole to exploit in the first place.

 

Seems to me like you're arguing against people's rights to hold religious beliefs.

[Carl the Llama]

There is a huge difference between legal and moral.  It's legal to get shitfaced on alcohol then throw up in public transport on your way home.  It's not legal to sit on your sofa sparking a blunt and watching Adventure Time. I know which one I find more morally palatable.