|
|
| Who deserves special rights more? |
| Pharmacists & doctors who want the right to refuse to perform tasks that collide with their morals. |
|
29% |
[ 25 ] |
| Gay men & lesbian women who want the right to adopt children and get married and the rights associated with marriage. |
|
70% |
[ 61 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:03 pm
A rape victim is denied the Plan B pill by her pharmacist.
A gay woman seeking artificial insemination is turned away by fertility specialists.
An ambulance driver refuses to transport a woman for an abortion.
A gynecologist refuses to prescribe birth control pills.
A doctor refuses to perform sterilization procedures.
A woman who had a misscarriage and had the dead fetus removed from her body is denied the drugs she needs to complete the process because a pharmacist assumes she is having an abortion.
A single woman is denied a physical by her doctor needed to adopt a baby because she is unmarried.
It's all part of a growing movement - doctors and pharmacists refusing to perform tasks required by their occupation because of their religious beliefs - also called "moral objections".
Imposing your morals and religious beliefs and values on others is repulsive - the fact that Congress and at least a dozen states are considering laws to shield doctors and pharmacists who do this from punishment is just completely insane.
If I worked at KFC but believed their treatment of animals is despicable so I refuse to serve or prepare food - but then also refuse to take orders from the drive through window and throw them out - should I be fired or should I be able to keep my job?
It just doesn't make a lick of sense. You aren't being "discriminated" against because you are Catholic / Christian / Jewish / Hindu / Muslim / etc - you're being "discriminated" against because you're refusing to do your job.
Discuss?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:07 pm
it does sound stupid, if you don't want to serve them just quit or something
also you sound cool cause it seems like your against kfcs animal cruelty, good for you biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:05 am
What those doctors (I'm not sure about the pharmacists) are forgetting is that they took an oath to heal, to serve; regardless of who it is. When a serial killer is brought in with life-threatening wounds, doctors are required by law to treat him, regardless of how terrible his crimes may be (not that I'm comparing gays/lesbians/single mothers/abortion patients/etc. to serial killers, merely an example of moral objection).
Edit: Also, whomever voted for doctors and pharmacists to have more special rights than patients, I highly encourage you to speak up and defend your views. The point of this forum is to generate discussion, so we need input from both sides, not just what's popular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:37 am
I can understand why doctors and people do such things, if you are going to church and God says 'thou shall not kill' and you turn around and the next day a woman comes up and says "I want an abortion' they are forced into disobey their beliefs and going to the placed called 'hell' and being outcasted by 'God'.
However, as stated they have taken an oath so then it comes down two moral belief, what is worst? Breaking the oath or 'killing' an unborn child. Most people would say 'Killing' an unborn child.
I personally voted for the gay rights but thought perhaps the person may be slightly scared to 'voice' their thoughts. So shall just put in the only thing I can assume could make one vote for doctors and pharmacists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:25 pm
chiru_shuukakshamaru I can understand why doctors and people do such things, if you are going to church and God says 'thou shall not kill' and you turn around and the next day a woman comes up and says "I want an abortion' they are forced into disobey their beliefs and going to the placed called 'hell' and being outcasted by 'God'.
However, as stated they have taken an oath so then it comes down two moral belief, what is worst? Breaking the oath or 'killing' an unborn child. Most people would say 'Killing' an unborn child.
If God is their first priority rather than performing the duties and tasks associated with their job - why not work as a pastor, nun, priest, missionary, monk, etc. rather than in an occupation where they know your morals could collide with the line of work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:34 pm
Cyanide Kitten If God is their first priority rather than performing the duties and tasks associated with their job - why not work as a pastor, nun, priest, missionary, monk, etc. rather than in an occupation where they know your morals could collide with the line of work? To make the Church more powerful? That's sorta like asking Mozart to be a writer, he wrote yes, he wrote music, made lovely works of art... but to have him write persay a book. Doctors in the old days were your shamans and voodoo doctors, people like that. So they asked and worshiped higher spirits to fix and heal the people, its not that different. To them perhaps if you anger you God, you'll end up with his foot in your behind. Again that's my belief, its us going once again back to the older ways of life, trying to find older roots, without even noticing such things. They anger their God, they lose their power to heal. Though of course in this case they are punished by going to hell for trying to do good in the world. Again that's how I can see it, doesn't mean its right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:26 pm
The doctors, pharmacists and etc.,I know many have said this before, have taken an oath to heal or try to heal any dispite the patients postion or the doctors morals. If a doctor's morals get in the way of his job my opinion is that he should be fired even if he's a good job. Your doing a job that with some people can be a matter of life and death or a life of pain, you need to do your job no matter your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:58 pm
if you know that you will have to do such things againsed your religion, why do the job? and to spark up some more debate, since a worker is doing 90% of his/her job, shouldn't they be paid only 90% of their wages?
it's like a building contractor who is supposed tobuild and furnish a house for $200,000 (just a number, may not be real life estimate), never puts in furniture, does he deserve $200,000?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:11 pm
Yes this is true, but as they say you do not know how much something can affect you until you have done/dealt with it.
I'm sure there are things people even here have said 'I'll never do that' and turn around and do so. Do you just stop being you?
Now yes personally I believe that if any form of morals or oaths get in the way of what you're doing then you shouldn't do it. Nothing is worst then breaking an oath and I personally believe that someone who breaks an oath they should die for such a thing. The only time to break an oath is if you are set free from it then in truth your not really breaking it because the person who you have that oath to, has set you free.
Now... christians and many other faiths, you give such an oath to one's God. "I accept Jesus Christ into My Heart" that right there is an oath to me. So then again it still comes down to the fact of which oath means more to that person? The oath to heal no matter what or the oath to serve and follow their God? One shouldn't have/make oaths that shall break paths... however sometimes that happens. Then the question is, what can you do, an oath to heal can't be undone other then though the person whom you gave the oath to, that oath is given to everyone, how do you set yourself free from an oath like that? The only objection left is to take back one's oath to their God, again how do you do that? Disown your faith?
Again this to me proves to be an example of why when you give an oath you have to be very very careful. No matter what you break an oath by not doing one or the other. Though I can agree, that personally they shouldn't go and take such places and jobs if they have already a certian oath that would make them unable to fulfull their other oath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:15 pm
There is a split for me on this issue. As for the driver and pharmicist, they have no choice. Your job is to drive, you drive, though I don't understand why someone would take an ambulance to an abortion. A pharmacist's main job is putting pills in a bottle and explaining side effects. If you refuse the customer will report back to the doctor and the doctor will ensure something happens.
The doctor not giving the physical is almost moot, the rarely allow single people to adopt. Sterilizations are done by appointment with specialists.
However refusing to do an abortion I have no problem with. If you see the fetus as a life, their is no problem. In your own eyes you would be commiting murder, something against your beliefs. They may have taken an oath but that oath covers it. The main point of the oath is do no harm. It doesn't cover what is and is not life. You see a life and would be harming it. Therefore, so long as the fetus doesn't threaten the mother, refusing an abortion on moral grounds is not only fine, it is fine under their oath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:46 am
KaguraOfTheWind However refusing to do an abortion I have no problem with. If you see the fetus as a life, their is no problem. In your own eyes you would be commiting murder, something against your beliefs. They may have taken an oath but that oath covers it. The main point of the oath is do no harm. It doesn't cover what is and is not life. You see a life and would be harming it. Therefore, so long as the fetus doesn't threaten the mother, refusing an abortion on moral grounds is not only fine, it is fine under their oath.
Very true, didn't think about that, the idea of the oath is indeed to not harm and if they do see the unborn child as a living thing. Then killing it would be going against that oath. However, they could surely direct you to someone else who could, then again they shouldn't be working in that field...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:24 am
There is also the issue of those who refuse to carry out death sentences. Do you really believe that someone should have to carry out the sentence if they are morally opposed to it? The ones who do it don't do it as a job, they are selected because it falls under their field. At least a firing squad helps to relieve guilt by not letting the squad know who fired the real bullet. This is a doctor who knows he is going to kill a man which is against his beliefs and his oath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:06 pm
Yes, however; not everyone feels that way when it comes to 'killing' or being the one who 'may' kill someone. I can name several people I know in real life even those related to me who could do so, as long as they are deemed 'evil' in their own eyes. But that just brings up another subject all together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:46 pm
Okay... uh... sorry if I offend anyone. sweatdrop
Personally, I believe this is a mute point. It doesn't really need attentive care. DOctors are forced by law and their oath to do all that is nessesery to preserve or prolong life. Anything else is not an emergency and is not their priority. Abortions and morning after pills are not an emergency. And since they are not an emergency, if one doctor denies it, you are alloud to find another doctor and get their opinion. If you go to court saying how you were denied by this doctor for an abortion, the Judge will tell you to get a second opinion.
Yes this is true. Both my parents have both worked in a medical field for over 20 years. They have explained this to me. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:06 am
SlaveToKarma Okay... uh... sorry if I offend anyone. sweatdrop Personally, I believe this is a mute point. It doesn't really need attentive care. DOctors are forced by law and their oath to do all that is nessesery to preserve or prolong life. Anything else is not an emergency and is not their priority. Abortions and morning after pills are not an emergency. And since they are not an emergency, if one doctor denies it, you are alloud to find another doctor and get their opinion. If you go to court saying how you were denied by this doctor for an abortion, the Judge will tell you to get a second opinion. Yes this is true. Both my parents have both worked in a medical field for over 20 years. They have explained this to me. 3nodding Isn't the morning after pill only effective for a short window of time? In a small town it might not be an option to waltz over to another pharmacy and get it filled there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[ Z a d i i e ]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/72/76/12bfcfd1417672_flip.png?t=1193922398_6.00_00)
Reply
