Against abortion or assisted dying? No med school for you

[bobhikes]

Yeah... they are hypocritical that way. Good of you to admit that.



There are zero rational reasons to oppose these-- 100% of the reasons are trying to force your RELIGIOUS VIEWS onto other people. 100%.



100% false-- see above.


BINGO! THAT IS WHY THEY SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN MEDICINE! Your last line?

100% SUPPORTS THE OP.

This is my personal take and I would bet a great many Doctors who value the lives of their patients at least any doctor I want to work on me.

I am against killing any living person.
I would want to talk anyone out of completing Euthanasia or an Abortion
I would would never agree to Kill a person.
I would let them decide if they want my opinion or not
I would them point them in the direction they need to go.
I would always support choice

Canada wants to stop certifiny Doctors I'm sure the US would be glad to take them. Do what you want I don't live there thankfully.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A lot of Doctors take the vow to save human lives very seriously even not being religious and would have a problem with assisting in killing a person.

Doctors can't always save a life though. That's what euthanasia revolves around. They are not going to be cured. They are not going to get better. Death is how this will end. It's not like a cold where with treatment and rest it is easily remedied. And has been demonstrated here, the doctor voted aren't the rigid, universal, set in stone words people assume. The one provided even mentioned the power my a life, saying not to do it but instead not to play at god. That can be interpreted as letting someone die instead instead of extending life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A Canadian bioethicist is proposing that medical and pharmacist schools reject applicants who indicate that they would refuse to provide medical treatment, including abortion and assisted dying, on conscientious grounds:


Medical schools should deny applicants who object to provide abortion, assisted death: bioethicist

My personal opinion: I see quite a bit of merit in Dr. Schuklenk's suggestion.

In some respects, it's a bit heavy-handed. After all, someone who objects to, say, abortion, contraception, and assisted dying could potentially steer themselves to a medical discipline that isn't involved with these services.

On the other hand, though, I think it's useful to send a strong message to med - and pharmacy - students that the most important principle in medicine is that the needs of the patient come first, so anyone who would deny a patient care based on the practitioner's "needs" has no place in the medical profession.

In an environment where there's heavy competition to get into medical schools, only the best students are going to get in. I think it makes sense for the measurement of "best" to include a look at the applicant's ethics, not just their academic performance.

What are your thoughts?

The original Hippocratic oath included "I shall not give a woman a pessary, to induce abortion."

May God forgive us all!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One in six hospital patients in the United States is now treated in a Catholic facility... And we're growing!

Facts - Statistics

And it's long past time they accept not everyone believes, not everyone wants a prayer, and not everyone is concerned with spiritual wellness. In my experience, catholic hospitals often suck those things.

 

[robocop (actually)]

BINGO! YOU JUST SUPPORTED THE OP! THEY ARE FORCING THEIR RELIGION ONTO THEIR PATIENTS!

And it is a BOGUS EXCUSE: All they have to do? Is ask Jesus to FORGIVE them, for afters!

WIN-WIN! Abortion is performed---patient is helped. They Do The Magic Forgive-Me Spell? Doctor's religion is Satisfied.



"soul" is a RELIGIOUS concept-- and in all the thousands of years of people claiming "soul"? Not One Time has ANYONE demonstrated an actual soul. It's safe that there are no such things.

But nevermindthat-- THIS IS FORCING RELIGIOUS DOGMA ONTO THE PATIENT.

But nevermind THAT: Abortion is the Ultimate Salvation: Since all Christians claim that babies go instantly to Heaven? Then Aborting a fetus is Instant Heaven--- NO CHANCE OF SIN-- IT'S THE ULTIMATE IN PROTECTING "CHILDREN".

Terrible post! You don't sin to be forgiven after. Their patients can do whatever they want, but they don't have to be an accomplice, who's forcing who?

Soul may be a religious concept but guess what? People do things based on religion in this country and in America we want to defend that.

The patient has the right to try to find someone who can give an abortion. The doctor should have the right on what he wants to do if they'll hire him.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Its wonderful how people assume the decisions for the life and medical treatment of another is not the individual patients to possess and make, but something someone else gets to decide for them. Patients having treatments options removed and having others make them violates their patients rights, which is real and taken very seriously--legally so even--unlike hypothetical, maybe they have it maybe they dont but words will vatlry that has no real enforcement oaths.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And it is a BOGUS EXCUSE: All they have to do? Is ask Jesus to FORGIVE them, for afters

Yeah, tons of Christians just dont belueve thats how it works.

 

[Shad]

... and given that, if we want to ensure that our society enjoys the full spectrum of medical services, our only opportunity to do something about it is before you become a doctor.

So you would get rid of a potential doctor because they will not perform a procedure they may never actually be requested to do? Hilarious zealotry.

Why invest significant amounts of time and effort training you if you promise right off the bat that you're going to do a substandard job?

You know there are other medical procedures outside abortion right?

When it's competitive to get into med school, why shouldn't the competition consider the student's willingness to actually take on the responsibilities of medicine?

Considering a majority of abortions in the West are not done for medical purposes this reduces the actual need for doctors that know the procedure.

Why give you a large grant to provide medical services in an underserved area if you end up refusing to provide those services?

Pick a different doctor then.

Everyone has the right to bodily security. Nobody is entitled to a spot in med school, or to practice their profession unethically.

Is abortion ethical when the reasons are not for having one are not medical?

Right: it's their choice. And part of this is that if they choose to refuse to do the job, they should step aside so that someone who will do it properly can have their place.

Hence a referral

FYI: you do realize that these "conscience" exemptions protect decisions that you don't necessarily agree with either, right? For instance, a racist fertility specialist could refuse to help an interracial couple.

Likewise you know those exemptions also allow JW to refuse blood transfusions. Are you going to advocate JW must be forced by law to have this procedure done against their will?

Of course not. But a physician who refuses to do cosmetic surgery wouldn't be taking up a space in the cosmetic surgery department of a hospital.

Duh. Stupid point.

I would expect a cosmetic surgeon to either do their job or resign.

There is no such thing as an abortion doctor. Flawed comparison as one is actually a specialty while you want abortion to be known by any and all doctors regardless if they will ever be in a situation to requiring them to perform the procedure. How many doctors that specialize in cosmetic surgery do abortions? What about neurosurgeons?

Codes of ethics and standards of care will always be part of the medical profession.

Is it ethical to force someone to do something against their will? Is it ethical to have an abortion for non-medical reasons?

Any doctor who can't work with these codes and standards is always free to find a different line of work.

Any patient is free to find another doctor.

 

[bobhikes]

Doctors can't always save a life though. That's what euthanasia revolves around. They are not going to be cured. They are not going to get better. Death is how this will end. It's not like a cold where with treatment and rest it is easily remedied. And has been demonstrated here, the doctor voted aren't the rigid, universal, set in stone words people assume. The one provided even mentioned the power my a life, saying not to do it but instead not to play at god. That can be interpreted as letting someone die instead instead of extending life.

I understand fully what euthanasia is. Doctors I'm sure understand it as well. Certain people can't take a life and my guess would be higher than 50% of people which include Doctor's forcing them to not be Doctors because they won't commit to euthanasia is stupid. To be honest euthanasia and abortion should fall in realm of Psychiatrists. Psychiatrist should insure that the patient is not being coerced into something they don't want and that they are in there right mind and in the case of abortion prepared to handle the aftermath. Psychiatrists can issue prescriptions in the US, I would assume they can in Canada as well. They can then get the patient the drug to kill themselves and be on-site when its administered. There even is an abortion pill now that can be prescribed. A simple course would be required for the Psychiatrist to administer vs training doctors in psychology. Or just make the prescriptions over the counter so anyone can get them without involving others.

 

[Heyo]

A fetus isn't a human person. Period.

Fixed that for you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The original Hippocratic oath included "I shall not give a woman a pessary, to induce abortion."

May God forgive us all!

The original Hippocratic Oath also prohibited doctors from performing surgery, prohibited the use of poisonous substances (e.g. chemotherapy), and required that med students loan their instructors money whenever needed.

 

[PureX]

Democracy is about elections not what is right or wrong nor what anyone can freely do as an individual.

What does this response have to do with anything being discussed?

Yes, democracy is "tyranny of the majority" to the individual that wants to do whatever he wants, however he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, to whomever he wants.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is my personal take and I would bet a great many Doctors who value the lives of their patients at least any doctor I want to work on me.

I am against killing any living person.
I would want to talk anyone out of completing Euthanasia or an Abortion
I would would never agree to Kill a person.
I would let them decide if they want my opinion or not
I would them point them in the direction they need to go.
I would always support choice

Canada wants to stop certifiny Doctors I'm sure the US would be glad to take them. Do what you want I don't live there thankfully.

That's fine. I would be in favor of you being REQUIRED to post the fact you will refuse medical care to certain people, because you place YOUR BELIEF over and above the patent's actual LIFE.

A big WARNING sign ought to be good enough.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Terrible post! You don't sin to be forgiven after. .

Why not? Is that not exactly what Christian Theology states in no uncertain terms?

It literally hammers home: Everyone Is A Sinner. Nobody can NOT SIN. Everyone needs CONSTANT REPEATING OF CONFESSION, or be in danger of HELL.

Literally-- this says exactly that: People Sin All The Time-- To Be Instantly Forgiven, once the proper Ritual is completed.

I truly do not understand your objection!

Their patients can do whatever they want, but they don't have to be an accomplice, who's forcing who?.

In many places, there is NOT a choice of doctor! That's forcing religious beliefs OVER THE ACTUAL LIFE OF THE PATENT!

Soul may be a religious concept but guess what? People do things based on religion in this country and in America we want to defend that..

The Constitution literally states you may NOT FORCE RELIGION onto ANYONE.

But apparently, you think that does not apply to YOU?

The patient has the right to try to find someone who can give an abortion. The doctor should have the right on what he wants to do if they'll hire him.

Nope-- the doctor MUST BE SUBSERVIENT to the patent's medical needs. That is how it works!

All too often, there is NO CHOICE on the part of the patent! Especially in 'Murrica where Medicine Is Seen As Opportunity For Making Much-Much Profit.

Classic Kick'em While They Are Down, And Take ALL Their Money-- and everything they own, too! Very Traditional American "values".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A doctor should be allowed to choose which part of healing he/she wants to do.

Are you sure you mean that? You may want to rethink your phrasing.

Do you really see no issue with, say, an anti-vax family doctor just deciding not to do vaccinations?

A lot of Doctors take the vow to save human lives very seriously even not being religious and would have a problem with assisting in killing a person.

Then they shouldn't take a job that involves medically assisted dying.

The premise of the OP does not mention anything about birth control or refusal to treat trans patients.

It's about "conscience" rights in general. Cases involving birth control and trans patients have come up in recent years and would have been protected by the proposed legislation.

It also does not mention any law only a proposal that was shot down.

I didn't notice that the bill had been defeated. Thanks for letting me know.

So you have no Idea how it would have been approved and just are appealing to the worst.

Sorry - not sure what you're trying to say here.

It seems the legislation is following the rules of the top court anyway. Ontario’s top court in May that upheld the rule that doctors in the province must refer patients to other doctors willing to provide any medical services they refuse to offer. That ruling should be sufficient and allow doctors to do there job properly and allow patiently medical assistance.

Should it? That's the rule that ended up with terminally ill patients having to have their consults on the sidewalk in the rain because the hospital refused to accommodate them.

... but let's look at refusal in practice with an example:

Say someone living in my town is refused a prescription for birth control. None of the other doctors in town are taking new patients, and we haven't had a walk-in clinic since the doctor running it passed away 2 years ago.

The closest place where she can get the prescription is a notoriously busy walk-in clinic two towns over. Average wait to see a doctor is several hours.

Say she works full time and has no car. There's no transit service on weekends, so she would need to take a cab: $50 each way.

So this patient - who has a regular doctor - would need to spend the better part of a day and $100 to get a basic prescription, all because her regular doctor refuses to do their job.

Edit: and after all that, there would be no guarantee that the doctor at the walk-in clinic wouldn't refuse the prescription, too.

Does this seem to you like a reasonable or fair burden to impose on this patient?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Fixed that for you.

Your edit did nothing to the message I wrote, not really.

"person" and "human" are synonyms, and the way I wrote it was meant to emphasize that.

But okay.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Why not? Is that not exactly what Christian Theology states in no uncertain terms?

It literally hammers home: Everyone Is A Sinner. Nobody can NOT SIN. Everyone needs CONSTANT REPEATING OF CONFESSION, or be in danger of HELL.

Literally-- this says exactly that: People Sin All The Time-- To Be Instantly Forgiven, once the proper Ritual is completed.

I truly do not understand your objection!



In many places, there is NOT a choice of doctor! That's forcing religious beliefs OVER THE ACTUAL LIFE OF THE PATENT!


The Constitution literally states you may NOT FORCE RELIGION onto ANYONE.

But apparently, you think that does not apply to YOU?



Nope-- the doctor MUST BE SUBSERVIENT to the patent's medical needs. That is how it works!

All too often, there is NO CHOICE on the part of the patent! Especially in 'Murrica where Medicine Is Seen As Opportunity For Making Much-Much Profit.

Classic Kick'em While They Are Down, And Take ALL Their Money-- and everything they own, too! Very Traditional American "values".

Nope. Sinning on purpose creates a mockery of Christ's atonement, and if the woman is not in danger, physically or psychologically, the doctor is not required to. Maybe we should cut off conversation but I'm happy to keep going.

 

[74x12]

Are you high?

Everyone has the right to bodily security. Nobody is entitled to a spot in med school, or to practice their profession unethically.

Nobody is entitled to practice unethically! Nice one spin doctor. That's just great isn't it? No one can disagree! But it only proves how invested you are in your ideology. If anyone disagrees they are automatically unethical. How dare they? You can't think objectively.

But the fact remains you demand a so called "woman's right to choose" but want to deny the choice of being involved in (or not involved in) an abortion to doctors. Double standard detected! Does not compute ... self destruct sequence initiated ... there is a flaw in your logic machine.

 

[bobhikes]

Are you sure you mean that? You may want to rethink your phrasing.

Do you really see no issue with, say, an anti-vax family doctor just deciding not to do vaccinations?

Does this seem to you like a reasonable or fair burden to impose on this patient?

I will address both of these. Anti-vax is not about taking a life it is about medical knowledge vs non-scientific knowledge so yes any doctor that refuses to practice medical knowledge should not be a doctor. There is no medical determination for when it is time to give a person an abortion or to euthanasia someone. This is a personal decision and is really the realm of a psychiatrist. You need to make sure the person is of sound mind and not being coerced. As it is a personal decision that is mainly psychological in natural it is not a medical decision. Doctors should be allowed there own rights to refuse.

As to the burden in both cases there is no immediate need, time and distance should not be an issue. Money is always an issue which is why there are help organizations. If Canada doesn't have such organizations perhaps Canadians are the problem.

 

[Heyo]

Your edit did nothing to the message I wrote, not really.

"person" and "human" are synonyms, and the way I wrote it was meant to emphasize that.

But okay.

I have criticised pro lifers on improper, emotional language many times (child vs. foetus) so I felt obligated to do it here.