Rape Victim Denied Contraceptives

[Silverharp]

Although ... you know I haven't yet seen anyone who's pro-life in this thread act that way yet.

I'd say because most who would fall under the "conservative" handle are actually more on the moderate side.

Most people here have a live and let live attitude, it's just when you see shit like this, where someone in a position of power abused that power in order to push their own idealogy on another person, in this case a rape victim, that it gets our goat.

Personally, this asshole should be given a choice: Put in so many hours as a dedicated rape responder or lose his medical license.

[Peppergirl]

There's a significant difference of degree here, with regard to how much some people are trying to control what other people do. A doctor operating OUTSIDE of his professional code of ethics because of his moral beliefs is causing harm by denying the woman in question the proper guidance due to her. Could she go to another doctor? Sure, but if she doesn't know she's getting bad advice, why would she? So he's manipulating her decisions through exercise of authority - he's actively making the decision for her, by not giving her the information to make the decision herself - and giving her that information is exactly what his professional code of ethics dictates that he do. At a minimum, if he does not believe he can tend to her needs in good faith, he needs to refer her to someone who can.

He decided to make the decision - a decision that is not his to make.

This. I'd fully agree with PE's assessment that someone else's views are not necessarily 'stupid' just because one doesn't agree with them. That is, when it doesn't affect someone else, especially in such an appalling and YES CRIMINAL way.

[PepperElf]

This. I'd fully agree with PE's assessment that someone else's views are not necessarily 'stupid' just because one doesn't agree with them. That is, when it doesn't affect someone else, especially in such an appalling and YES CRIMINAL way.

Perhaps that's the crux of the matter then. From what I've read it wasn't actually illegal. Just that some woman's groups are angry over it and feel that it should be illegal.

However on that note I guess I'll stick to agreeing to disagree whether or not it's illegal / should be etc.

[Duelist925]

Perhaps that's the crux of the matter then. From what I've read it wasn't actually illegal. Just that some woman's groups are angry over it and feel that it should be illegal.

However on that note I guess I'll stick to agreeing to disagree whether or not it's illegal / should be etc.

Can you think of a reason why something like this should be legal? That a rape victim does not receive the care she needs, due to a doctors religious beliefs?

I'd really like a legitimate defense for such an action.

[PepperElf]

Can you think of a reason why something like this should be legal? That a rape victim does not receive the care she needs, due to a doctors religious beliefs?

I'd really like a legitimate defense for such an action.

The problem with that is ... "legitimate" is much like the usage of the word "superior" used just recently.

Who really can judge here what is "legitimate" enough for a belief, without getting into the realm of trying to judge who's beliefs are superior.


Because one cannot start that without facing the same kind of judgement in my opinion.

[Nekojin]

The problem with that is ... "legitimate" is much like the usage of the word "superior" used just recently.

Who really can judge here what is "legitimate" enough for a belief, without getting into the realm of trying to judge who's beliefs are superior.


Because one cannot start that without facing the same kind of judgement in my opinion.

This is little more than false equivalence pretending to be neutrality.

[Andara Bledin]

Who really can judge here what is "legitimate" enough for a belief, without getting into the realm of trying to judge who's beliefs are superior.

Whose beliefs are "superior" is a strawman and entirely irrelevant.

This isn't about beliefs; if it were about beliefs, it would be taking place at a church, not a hospital.

This is about medical care. There were no legal or ethical barriers to the victim receiving the care she desired. The only barrier was a belief system that she herself did not share.

This is a rather clear-cut and plain case of a person abusing their position of authority for the purpose of religious oppression over another. It was religious discrimination.

^-.-^

[Peppergirl]

PE, this isn't about beliefs. Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs, no matter how fucked up or crazy, as long as they don't fuck with other people. This so-called doctor has allowed her beliefs to interfere with her JOB and with someone's life.

*That's* what everyone is up in arms about, and rightfully so.

I'm trying to wrap my head around you seemingly thinking it's okay for her beliefs to alleviate her duty to do her job. And to put her personal beliefs aside and do her damned job.

That's all I'm trying to figure out. It's not about 'agreeing to disagree'. I'm fine with that, I just want to examine why you feel this way.

[Duelist925]

The problem with that is ... "legitimate" is much like the usage of the word "superior" used just recently.

Who really can judge here what is "legitimate" enough for a belief, without getting into the realm of trying to judge who's beliefs are superior.


Because one cannot start that without facing the same kind of judgement in my opinion.

Please stop dodging the question. As others have pointing out, its not about wether his beliefs are legitimate. not in the slightest.


What I am asking for, from you, is specifically: Is there any defense to this person using their beliefs to not do their job and thereby inflict their beliefs on another person?

If yes, what is this defense?

And does it still hold up when taking into account the rape victim aspect?

Please don't try and dodge the question again. Its a fairly simple question.

[PepperElf]

I see you dislike my answer. It is not a dodge but the truth... it's really hard to give you an answer that won't be met with a dismissal of beliefs no matter how much anyone here tries to say it's not about beliefs.


Maybe it's me but it seems a lot like people are expecting the doctors to put their own personal beliefs aside for others. But would they themselves do the same?

Which is why it really DOES turn into a belief match - why is one person obligated to put his or her beliefs second for someone else, while that other person is not?

Why should the other person's beliefs be rated higher?

[Andara Bledin]

The person whose beliefs should be paramount is the person being treated.

A doctor is not ethically allowed to force treatment on a person who is sane and has refused. This should be a two-way street; a doctor should not ethically be allowed to refuse appropriate treatment on a person who is sane and would benefit, either.

If a person has beliefs which are in conflict with their duties, then they went into the wrong line of work and need to get out of the way for people who will do their jobs.

^-.-^

[Peppergirl]

PE, you're still not getting it. Again, most people don't give a flying shit about what beliefs other people hold, regardless of how insane or backward. What people DO care about is when THOSE BELIEFS negatively and devastatingly impact another human being's welfare.

A human being that a doctor, by very virtue of the hippocratic oath, is required and obligated to help.

People put aside their personal beliefs every day in order to do their jobs. What I'm asking is why you feel it's okay that THIS person didn't put aside HER beliefs in order to do HER job.

[ngc_7331]

But would they themselves do the same?

Which is why it really DOES turn into a belief match - why is one person obligated to put his or her beliefs second for someone else, while that other person is not?

Why should the other person's beliefs be rated higher?

Yes, yes, I would. Know why? Because it's my job. And if I didn't like it, I would seek another job. If you had a moral issue with guns, would you work at a gun shop and then tell people that you're going to refuse to sell the a gun or ammo? Or work at a butcher's shop if you're a vegetarian and refuse to sell meat because it's against your moral code? No. Why? Because you're going to:

a. look like a moron
b. piss off a lot of people
c. lose your job

Why are we holding a doctor to a different standard?

[Nekojin]

The Hippocratic Oath - an oath that doctors are sworn to as part of their admission to practice medicine - states, "First, do no harm." There isn't an addendum with an asterisk at the bottom that says, "Unless it offends your sensibilities or goes against your religion."

Thousands of doctors around the world live by this oath, and labor to uphold it. Many of them are religious individuals who still manage to put the patients' needs ahead of their own.

This doctor did harm by not properly informing his patient. Full stop.

[Duelist925]

I see you dislike my answer. It is not a dodge but the truth... it's really hard to give you an answer that won't be met with a dismissal of beliefs no matter how much anyone here tries to say it's not about beliefs.

You did not give me an answer. You gave me a vague wiffle waffle about "legitimacy" and how its defined by different people.

This is not an answer.

Furthermore, you still have not given me an answer.

If you cannot give me an answer, then simply say so.

If you can, then please do. Because I honestly want to know--Do you think it's ok for someone's beliefs to trump what they are expected to do at a job, and why? As NGC said, can a vegitarian refuse to prepare meat, despite being a butcher? Can an anti gun person refuse to sell firearms, despite working in a gun shop? And still expect to keep they're job?

Can a doctor refuse to give the care that his very profession code demands he give, and if so, WHY IS THIS OK? I just want a reason.

It doesn't even have to be a good reason.

But if you can't think of one, simply admit it.

Maybe it's me but it seems a lot like people are expecting the doctors to put their own personal beliefs aside for others. But would they themselves do the same?

Yes. Because most of the people on this board are aware that you do not let your beliefs signifigantly interfere in your job--or you find a new job.

Which is why it really DOES turn into a belief match - why is one person obligated to put his or her beliefs second for someone else, while that other person is not?

Why should the other person's beliefs be rated higher?

Because the other persons beliefs are not the ones interfearing with the first persons job!

A patients beliefs don't need to be put aside, because usually they're beliefs that do not object to being treated for illness (with some exceptions). She is not FORCING her belief onto anyone, by receiving treatment.

A doctor, on the other hand, is forcing their morals, their beliefs, onto someone else by refusing to treat someone on religious or belief grounds, which they have no damn right to do.

They can refer the patient to someone else. At a minimum, I'm ok with that. But that is the bare minimum they can do. Otherwise, they are forcing their beliefs onto someone who may not share them.

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".