Reversal of Bush Conscience Clause

by sammielee24 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sammielee24

  Libs are so fun. He/she automatically thinks I'm a bible thumper because I think that anybody should *gasp* not be forced to do something that goes against their beliefs

  Having a hard time grasping words and context are we? Taking offense at the word 'fundy' and feeling the need to defend it? Pot calling the kettle? I believe you used the words 'you libs'..and 'typical lib'...so your assumption was glaring that if one reading or agreeing with this is a 'typical lib'. If fundy fits then wear the shoe well. Nobody called you a bible thumper but yourself...a fundamentalist point of view however, is one of zero tolerance for the views of others..that's not a liberal trait..so I guess one could naturally conclude that if you are against people having a choice then you must believe in no choice...aka a fundamentalist point of view. I didn't know that 'gasp', actually allowing a person to have a choice about something could be such a detestable practice .... sammieswife.
• 

  sammielee24

  So answer me this, why should a doctor do the job of what pamphlets in front of the doctor's office (Assuming it's a public hospital and not a private one) should do? The doctor finds life to be of value, no matter at what stage and he/she will stick to it.

  Hmmmmm..let me really think about that...hmmmmmm...well, let's say that doctor allowed the phamphlets at the front of his office but behind the file cabinet where nobody could see them. He would still be following the law because he had them there even if they weren't out in full view of anyone. Some people don't read well, may not read the language the phamphlets are written in and may not read at all. If a doctor finds value in life then he should have no problem in explaining to the patient the decisions and choices available to the person so the person makes the decision on the care that they see as valuable and necessary to their quality of life. A doctor who is so absolutely opposed to any discussion or explanation of processes, organizations or treatment that is available to people for their condition, is a doctor who should not be in practice in any other facility except one that adheres to his own strict fundamental viewpoint especially in a public facility paid for by the tax paying public that may be made up of any number of belief systems and some contrary to his own. The vegan doesn't have to hand me the pill - he can get his assistant to and tell me why he is opposed to it after he has a discussion with me. If the vegan is so unreasonable and so unwilling to work with his clientele because his way is the only way he will allow - he has become intolerant and his world becomes smaller as instead of helping people understand and perhaps change, he finds himself surrounded only by those with the same level of intolerance and rigid mindset. The vegan who lacks that tolerance and refuses to help me out, should not be in a business that uses public funds of any sort since he is not supporting the public.

  sammieswife.
• 

  sammielee24

  And FYI, I'm personally against abortion as a procedure but I think that legistlating it away is the wrong method to reduce it. Want to paint me into another corner based on a stereotype? I'll give you another stereotype. I eat jerk chicken and I have dreadlocks. Happy now?

  You are one seriously sad soul. Why on earth you would ever feel the need to talk about chicken and dreadlocks and sterotypes is beyond necessary and most certainly seems to scream more about your lack of confidence than it does about the debate. Why would anyone care what you eat or how you look? Nobody needs to paint you into a corner - you've done that all by yourself.

  FYI - I believe in education and giving people all information to help them make decisions that are right for them. sammieswife.
• 

  Jankyn

  Removal of the "conscience" clause will also mean that JWs who don't want to give blood transfusions no longer have an out. If it's a legitimate part of the job's duties, you do it, or you find another job.

  Frankly, this seems like a no-brainer to me. If someone cannot in good conscience provide information or services that are a regular part of their profession, then they ought to find another profession.

  Think of it as the "Amish school bus driver rule." It's perfectly OK if an Amish person doesn't want to drive, but then they can't claim "discrimination" when they're turned down for a job driving a school bus. Oh, and Cold Red Rain, that would include a vegan who didn't want to dispense capsules made of gelatin. Same deal. Believe what you want, but if it means you can't do the job, I guess you'll be looking for work.
• 

  beksbks

  Want to paint me into another corner based on a stereotype?

  LOL

  Typical lib,you only want tolerance for thee, but not for him her or me.
• 

  jws

  So answer me this, why should a doctor do the job of what pamphlets in front of the doctor's office (Assuming it's a public hospital and not a private one) should do? The doctor finds life to be of value, no matter at what stage and he/she will stick to it.

  Why should a doctor offer any advice on procedures at all? Public libraries contain medical books and journals. WebMD offers a lot of information. All patients should be well versed on medical procedures, come in and tell the doctor what's wrong with them, and ask for the appropriate treatment. Why should the doctor do the job of diagnosing the patient when websites exist to do this?

  When you need a doctor, you may not be in the best shape or state of mind to go hunting for pamphlets to read. And if a pamphlet is unclear, you can't ask it more questions. You trust the doctor to be the owner of the knowledge and share it with you.

  To deliberately hide by ommission is pretty close to lying from my point of view.

  Educating the patient on ALL options available seems the best course. The doctor does not make the choice to perform the objectional procedure, the patient does. And at that point, the doctor need not perform the procedure (if I'm reading the article correctly).

  What if the doctor were a JW and didn't tell the patient that a life-saving transfusion was available. Everybody knows what transfusions are. But if the doctor doesn't mention it, you may think that it doesn't apply to your situation and may not ask for it.