That is the whole essence of being a doctor I think...Not just performing...and I have no clue as to how it effects the janitor either...Maybe refusing to give directions to a place that gives abortions or vaccines or blood transfusions????
That's not the point...the point is...they have an obligation to do everything in their patients best interest..period...first do no harm yes...is right...How harmful do you think not advising someone of their birth control options and them getting pregnant would be if it was unwanted pregnancy??? How harmful would not advising a parent of their child's need for a vaccine be if thew child caught a disease that could have been prevented by vaccine died...Do ya see what I mean????
Do ya think the doctor is gonna sit down and explain to you...what his morals and religious convictions are when you become a patient???
Well don't believe in that either...if you can't do the job required...and leave your religious convictions at home..then you shouldn't be doing it....BUT the difference with this is...that a doctor has an obligation to his patient...a cabbie has no obligation to his fare...
Yes they are...BUT a doctor also has an obligation to his patients...that's what the Hypocrattic Oath is all about....and it's putting his patients interests before his own and giving them the best care...treatment...and options possible....Regardless of his personal beliefs....
My view is that you took an oath as a doctor and your first responsibility is your patient and their well being....regardless of your religious beliefs...If you can't perform all of the necessary requirements for your patient an their well being as required by the oath you took...then you shouldn't be a doctor...What next??? If this were allowed to be the case????
Christian doctors' group protests rolling back 'conscience' rule
(CNN) -- An organization of Christian physicians argued Wednesday against an impending rollback of a federal rule allowing health care workers to refuse to provide certain reproductive services, saying it's discriminatory. The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.
The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.
The Bush White House proposed the rule in August, and it was enacted January 20, the day President Obama took office. It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for health care professionals who don't want to perform abortions.
Under the rule, workers in health care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.
The Obama administration is expected to reverse the rule shortly, touching off a new wave of heated debate over what remains one of the most sensitive and emotional hot-button issues in American politics.
" 'Right of conscience' is under attack, and that is dangerous for our country, our health care system and our patients," said Dr. David Stevens, head of the 15,000-member Christian Medical Association.
"When the state demands that we surrender our conscience, it becomes totalitarian and dangerous. Do we want our professional schools to ethically neuter doctors of all moral convictions that are not approved by the government?"
Stevens was speaking on behalf of Freedom to Care, an umbrella organization of 36 groups working to prevent a rollback of the rule.
Many health care organizations, including the American Medical Association, believe that health care providers have an obligation to their patients to advise them of the options despite their own beliefs. And critics of the current rule argue that there are laws on the books protecting health-care professionals when it comes to refusing care for personal reasons.
"We don't make God-like decisions. ... That's not what it's about for us. It's about helping the patient make their own decision. ... No one appointed us to be the ultimate person to pass judgment," said Mary Jean Schumann, a member of the American Nurses Association.
Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chairwoman of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, praised Obama "for placing good health care above ideological demands."
"Physicians across the country were outraged when the Bush administration, in its final days, limited women's access to reproductive health care," she said. "Hundreds of doctors protested these midnight regulations and urged President Obama to repeal them quickly. We are thrilled that President Obama [is taking steps] to ensure that our patients' health is once again protected."
Get a grip...start listening to each other...compromise and noooooo don't go to bed mad...I think couples fight because of unresolved issues that they allow to fester and somebody not getting what they want....compromise allows each person to feel like a winner even if it's not getting exactly what you want...and just something that each person can live with...this way the relationship wins too...which should always be the main thing...
Exactly Robbie...which is the reason can say or will say....why this war was started....What it was meant to accomplish and what they wanted to see as outcomes....
Pleaasssssssseeeeeeeeee....You don't start a war based on something done 5 years after the fact...If it's that concerning enough to start a war over...which is pretty damn serious..you do it immediately to avoid further deaths....That's just common sense...
Welllllll here's the thing...before you drag other countries into things...I would suggest that the facts should be straight...that no country should be going to war based on false info and excuses...that's my point....Nobody seems to know just what this war is even about...what it was meant to accomplish and for who...
Welllll because it's not fact..It's an excuse...one of many justifications over the years....Starting a war 5 years after the fact...can't be anything BUT....
Not likely...BUT don't you think if it were that concerning that action woulda been taken immediately not 5 years later before he had a chance to kill more people and build up more chemicals????
That's not my point...Better late than never is a good excuse to start a war???? I don't think sooo...If the real concern was there it would have happened immediately....
There are other regimes also doing the same things to their own people...I don't see the difference....
Noooooooooo but then I don't think Canada made the decision to invade another country either...BUT if we did...then I'm sure we woulda had some...that's because there would have to be something to accomplish other than just killing people....
Ahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa..but that was not the reason this war was started...that was an excuse given after the fact....I mean that happened at least a good 5 years before Iraq was invaded soooooo if they were that concerned why wait that long?????
Hugz_n_Kissez Forum Posts (25,438)
RE: Why us older guys can't win!!
It's under the more emotions doll....