On Saturday, a United States district judge ruled that doctors may turn away women who have had abortions, and transgender patients, on the basis of religious freedom.

In his order, Judge Reed O'Connor argued laws that would otherwise forbid gender-based discrimination require doctors "to remove the categorical exclusion of transitions and abortions (a condition they assert is a reflection of their religious beliefs and an exercise of their religion) and conduct an individualized assessment of every request for those procedures."

Judge rules doctors can refuse trans patients and women who have had abortions  https://mic.com/articles/164234/judge-rules-doctors-can-refuse-trans-patients-and-women-who-have-had-abortions#.cCjJvZXzG

That is the problem, in our modern world, with Christianity, its subject to how the teachings of Christ are intrepreted. From a bhuddist perspective that right to intrepret makes it similar to Moslems and how some of them intrepret the Koran. So sad when people are so narrow minded.

Religious freedom means that, if your religion prohibits you from doing your job impartially for all clients, you are free to choose another career that is more in keeping with your beliefs.   

Agree with Kathy, if you cant do your job do another one. The whole ''religious freedom'' to chose rather or not to do your job reminds me of a 17 year old who is at work and someone takes their cell phone away because it is interfering with their job and they complain ''its mine, you have no right....'' exact same theory applies. Some people feel over entitled due to one thing or another and it needs to end right now

It appears that Judge O'Connor's ruling may "have legs", in that the Trump administration is not likely to dispute it.  The impact of this recent election begins to be felt.

Move to Canada y'all <3

Look at the flip side of this. I do not want to be treated for any medical issue by a doctor that views me as inferior, a "sinner", to be shunned rather than cared for. The proud and sanctimonious doc is saving me the trouble of a malpractice suit.

And the doctor just has to be true to his faith. If his faith teaches that sinners are to be shunned, that the sinful are not worthy of his care, well, he's got to do as his faith teaches. Even if hundreds of sinners pack his waiting room... 

Of course, he may need to consider a career change, perhaps a location change, to uphold his faith properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Michelle  LOL!

The problem may arise that not only are individual physicians and therapists exempted from providing care to LGBT folks, but so are employers, in the health care plans they provide to their entire workforce.  So, even if one finds caregivers willing to administer, the treatments are not covered by insurance.

Yeah. I'm expecting some folks will found a religion for employers that declares all illness can only be treated through prayer, or that insurance is sinful.

This path can only end badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Michelle_P on January 07, 2017, 10:01:56 AM
Yeah. I'm expecting some folks will found a religion for employers that declares all illness can only be treated through prayer, or that insurance is sinful.

This path can only end badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're too late.  There is already a religious group in the USA that rejects modern medicine and relies on prayer only.  It's been here since 1879.

"Christian Scientists believe that all illness and suffering are ultimately illusory. Obviously, Scientists feel sick and experience disease as others do, but they believe illness results from a mistaken view of the nature of reality, indicating a need for spiritual renewal." http://www.advocatehealth.com/documents/faith/Christian_Science_final2.pdf


It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not.
André Gide, Autumn Leaves

I think for one, there ought to be some exceptions to this "religious freedom" idea besides those (I think) exist for public service workers, like police, firefighters and such.  Taken to its extreme, would everyone have to wear some kind of marker signifying their religious beliefs so others can tell whether or not to interact or provide service?  That just seems to become ludicrous, and I don't understand how people can find it acceptable as a path.  What if a devout believing firefighter didn't want to put out a gay person's house on fire?  Is that ok in anyone's mind?

What about a right to privacy?  Shouldn't patients at least have the right to conceal their beliefs?  This is especially sticky in the medical case.  Concealing previous conditions could complicate or mislead treatments.  It really feels like this isn't being thought through.  You don't even have to think about the mean-spiritedness of singling out vulnerable populations to see the ridiculosity of it.  God help us all. 

Erin

Quote from: Raell on January 07, 2017, 04:22:24 AM
On Saturday, a United States district judge ruled that doctors may turn away women who have had abortions, and transgender patients, on the basis of religious freedom.

Been there.
Done that.
Had to find a new clinic.
And that was 2016.
Same old same old.

Quote from: Deborah on January 07, 2017, 10:11:46 AM
You're too late.  There is already a religious group in the USA that rejects modern medicine and relies on prayer only.  It's been here since 1879.

Deborah, yes!  There are lots of ethical cases where practitioners have violated patients' beliefs in order to provide care excepted by the patients' religions.  I believe that these tend to be pretty straightforward under ethics reviews, provided that the patients' beliefs were made known.  It's a far different thing to say "don't give me that thing because of my beliefs" versus "I won't give it to you based on MY beliefs." 

A business run by Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses could theoretically withhold things like transfusions from coverage by their company-provided insurance, I guess, but those tend to be more peripheral issues, whereas the crusade against the LGBT community by fundy Christians has a very broad appeal, unfortunately. 

Erin

Quote from: Michelle_P on January 07, 2017, 08:40:14 AM
Look at the flip side of this. I do not want to be treated for any medical issue by a doctor that views me as inferior, a "sinner", to be shunned rather than cared for. The proud and sanctimonious doc is saving me the trouble of a malpractice suit.

I'll bet that Tyra Hunter wouldn't have minded some care by the EMTs that left her to die instead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter

"Tyra Hunter (1970 – August 7, 1995) was an African-American transgender woman who died after being injured as a passenger in a car accident and being refused emergency medical care."



It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not.
André Gide, Autumn Leaves

Just to give them their due, Christian Scientists do view the decision to seek medical care as a personal right and choice, up to the individual, and will not interfere.  The 'practitioner', the Christian scientist providing support, is to withdraw should the patient desire medical treatment.  They're not a group I'd worry about, as they do not seek to impose their practices on others.  Oh, and many major insurers actually cover Christian Scientist treatments, including their hospice care!

Other religious groups may not be quite as willing to permit such freedom to others...

Regarding Tyra, well, there are people in the world who just shouldn't be out there in those jobs.  Emergency services is an area where the patients and medical providers don't choose each other, and refusing care to someone based on personal preferences is just unacceptable. 

Persons selecting a medical career should take a long, hard look at themselves and their choices, if they intent to pick and choose among those needing their care based on their own personal belief system.  Judging who should receive their care based on their sitting in religious judgement of others is not acceptable.

Sent from my iPad using

I agree with Michelle that I would not want to be treated by nor give my money to bigoted people. I would stage a huge social media campaign against them that they wouldn't know what hit them.

Let them put a sign on their door that reads ,"sinners not welcome" and see what happens to their practice. 

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Don't want abortion don't have one. Don't want a man peeing in the ladies room, don't go in there. I'm a lady. Strange thing is, it is men who are scared of these issues. Not the women.

Quote from: Raell on January 07, 2017, 04:22:24 AM
On Saturday, a United States district judge ruled that doctors may turn away women who have had abortions, and transgender patients, on the basis of religious freedom.

In his order, Judge Reed O'Connor argued laws that would otherwise forbid gender-based discrimination require doctors "to remove the categorical exclusion of transitions and abortions (a condition they assert is a reflection of their religious beliefs and an exercise of their religion) and conduct an individualized assessment of every request for those procedures."

Judge rules doctors can refuse trans patients and women who have had abortions  https://mic.com/articles/164234/judge-rules-doctors-can-refuse-trans-patients-and-women-who-have-had-abortions#.cCjJvZXzG

It only applies in Texas. 

It was a Federal Judge so it becomes precident for other Federal cases.


It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not.
André Gide, Autumn Leaves