Comments on: Conscience Clauses Revisted

By: “Day Without A Gay” :: FITSNews

“Day Without A Gay” :: FITSNews — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:18:36 +0000

[...] weâ€™ve said before, homosexuality is, plain and simple, a birth defect – a deviation from the norm (where “norm” is defined as the majority) which science [...]

By: rick

rick — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:10:52 +0000

Why don’t we label this to be another case of loss of freedom to follow our individual beliefs within the main framework of the constitution. The wonderful thing about our nation is, that we each should be able to follow our path to “lif, liberty and the persuit of happiness” without having to prostitute ourselves in order to earn a living. If I choose not to conduct abortions as a doctor, that is my right. If I choose not to treat aids patients, that again is my right. If my employer finds my beliefs are in conflict with their needs, then adjust must be made. We can “what if” until the cows come home, the underlying question is: As an American citizen, do you have the right to follow your conscience? Are you free to follow the dictates of your faith? Are you required to subliminate those beliefs when other courses of action are available?

By: Renee

Renee — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:46:36 +0000

I understand that you are trying to speak as an ally but this, “Homosexuality, like any other major deviation from the norm, is a birth defect.” is highly offensive. This comment assumes that heterosexuality is the norm. Since sexuality is fluid this is a completely erroneous statement to make.

By: baker

baker — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:35:11 +0000

Yeah, I think Mande’s logic is clearly off base. The question isn’t whether or not doctors should be allowed to refuse treatment to people they find morally troubling. S.D. is right — can a doctor then refuse pre-natal treatment for a woman pregnant out of wedlock?

I think the question is whether performing abortions is so dicey that it should constitute an exception. In my opinion, I can understand the need for an exception there. It’s not the same, in my opinion, as not giving care to someone.

Some liberals may disagree. But I think whether or not abortion should be made illegal, it’s certainly troubling enough that doctors shouldn’t have to carry out that procedure if they’re against it.

By: Silence Dogood

Silence Dogood — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:10:15 +0000

Rick, Mande’s point in the article sounded to me that she was against this particular conscience clause because it would have allowed people not to treat homosexuals (if that was not a choice and was actually something congenital) but was O.K. with the other conscience clause because it was based on conscious chohices made by the patient. I think that is probably not the most beneficial standard to use. Also, medical personell, like cops, fire fighters et cetera are often in situations where they may meet very morally repugnant people…even worse that homosexuals…and have to treat them. Should pharmacists be able, in your opinion, to withhold drugs from felons? EMT’s keep from providing CPR to people shot in drug related violence (or at least withhold treatment until getting proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person injured was an innocent by stander)?

There are places other than being employed by Uncle Sam that one has to make choices that may compromise their moral beliefs based on employment. Furthermore, unless we are in a draft, no one is forced into the military…it is after the job starts that you usually hear “you know what you signed up for.”

By: Mattheus Mei

Mattheus Mei — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:10:55 +0000

Rick the question then becomes – should the same hold true for doctors who disagree over the origins of homosexuality and their beliefs about homosexuality?

Mande you get a D for your efforts in trying to justify the California decision with your beliefs about Healthcare provider’s choice.

The better route would have been to argue the “inherent dignity of each human person” as reasons to make doctors treat a person’s illness regardless of any qualitative factor whether it’s gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, or religion.

The justification behind a conscious clause is not to exclude certain groups from health care whether they’re fetuses or full grown flaming queens, but to ensure that all are treated with the same dignity and opportunities available to them by healthcare providers who follow the hypocratic oath.

By: rick

rick — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:52:58 +0000

SD….no sense, please elaborate.
Within the military we a re required to sometimes squelch our beliefs for the greater good/orders. The question is, at what point does an employer have the right to force an employee to violate their beliefs? The court system the same? In the civilian sector, no one should be required to provide services they don’t believe in. We have an abundance of doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc. To force a doctor to do abortions, or a pharmacist to provide the morning after pill is wrong. There are other doctors and other pharmacists that will do the job. If this intrudes upon the employers business, then the doctor or pharmacist should find another employer with the same concerns/beliefs they hold. This concept of forcing someone to violate their core beliefs simply because you’re to lazy to shop around is just plain wrong.

By: Silence Dogood

Silence Dogood — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:25:26 +0000

“Why should an individual be required to provide a service if contrary to their beliefs?” Then don’t go into medicine working for the government or a public hospital.

By: Unbelievable

Unbelievable — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:42:38 +0000

Why should an individual be required to provide a service if contrary to their beliefs? Let the patient go to who is willing to provide a service.

Once again Mande wants socialism and supports it

By: notverybright

notverybright — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:16:36 +0000

I’d suggest Googling “troll” and “narcissistic personality disorder.” That will be my last word on this writer, because I’ve apparently been feeding the beast.