HIV Drug Violates "Religious Freedom"

[The Hammer]

No... it isn't even close to close enough unless you want to exaggerate what happened.

From the get go, it was what I was discussing. Each article I've talked about mentioned it was about insurance coverage. Figured that was a given.

So again. It's ok to withhold potentially life saving medications, due to "freedom".

Sounds like garbage reasoning to me. If your religious proclivities prevent you from providing potentially helpful medicine, your (not aimed at your personally) religion is wrong.

I'm pretty sure God would want you to help ALL who suffer. Not just the "deserving".

 

[Sand Dancer]

A Texas judge rules coverage of anti-HIV medicine violates religious freedom

Aaaand...... Like I said.

It's been banned (in TX). @KenS

It's going to keep going and be banned in even more places now. Go Religious "freedom"!!! Woohoo /s

Next up JWs and blood transfusions.

JW doctor won't give blood transfusion to dying patient citing religious freedom.

 

[Kenny]

From the get go, it was what I was discussing. Each article I've talked about mentioned it was about insurance coverage. Figured that was a given.

So again. It's ok to withhold potentially life saving medications, due to "freedom".

Sounds like garbage reasoning to me. If your religious proclivities prevent you from providing potentially helpful medicine, your (not aimed at your personally) religion is wrong.

I'm pretty sure God would want you to help ALL who suffer. Not just the "deserving".

Ok... Agreement and disagreement.

1) I agree, that I don't know why that doctor has that position -
2) I agree, IMV it is as wrong to withhold this medication as it is to have an abortion - its about saving lives
3) I disagree that the edict prevents the medication from happening, you just go to another doctor because this is one doctor in all the doctors that there are

 

[The Hammer]

JW doctor won't give blood transfusion to dying patient citing it's against his religion.

Like... Was this an actual event that happened?

 

[The Hammer]

you just go to another doctor because this is one doctor in all the doctors that there are

Unless that's your in-network insurance provider and there are no other Drs in your little rural town.

This is insinuating that everyone has a choice of which Drs they see, when most do not.

Edit: I don't get a "choice" of which Drs I see. I am authorized to see a small select few. Nad if no Dr in my area provides the coverage I need (and it's happened before), I'm SOL. Unless I've got the hundreds to thousands of dollars to set myself with one outside of my insurance network (who is usually hundreds of miles and many hours away).

 

[Sand Dancer]

Like... Was this an actual event that happened?

No, but I can see the future headlines now.

 

[Kenny]

Unless that's your in-network insurance provider and there are no other Drs in your little rural town.

This is insinuating that everyone has a choice of which Drs they see, when most do not.

Edit: I don't get a "choice" of which Drs I see. I am authorized to see a small select few. Nad if no Dr in my area provides the coverage I need (and it's happened before), I'm SOL. Unless I've got the hundreds to thousands of dollars to set myself with one outside of my insurance network (who is usually hundreds of miles and many hours away).

That is a whole lot of "ifs" and unreasonably so. IMO

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be honest, I don't understand why this person is against it as I also don't understand when people, for religious reasons, don't want blood transfusions. (although I could be accused, at some point, of the same thing but in a different area)

I do have a couple of points:

1. Though I don't agree with this position, I think that "forcing" one's beliefs the other way is probably more detrimental since it amounts to thought control and it will come around and bite us
2. I am equally concerned at the "politicization" of what one person wants and then makes it a R vs D issue. And it always is "Religious right" (not saying there isn't one) - when there are just as many "Religious left" and people on the right who are atheists, agnostics, homosexuals et al. it ends up being irrelevant IMO
3. The current exponential growth of religiophobia makes us ripe for dictatorship and persecution. IMV. After you silence freedom of religion, the next step is to silence your beliefs if it doesn't match with theirs.

The guys a doctor. He should know those in his field are at am elevated risk for HIV, and other bloodborne diseases, by the very nature of the job and working with needles.
I consider that neglecting the needs of his own employees.

 

[The Hammer]

That is a whole lot of "ifs" and unreasonably so. IMO

Like I said. It's a situation I've been in. So it's really not.

But whatever makes you feel better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mis-quote, with a hint of grandstanding...

It isn't banned... the statement is "that a requirement for businesses to provide health insurance that covers HIV-preventative drugs violates the religious freedom". It didn't ban it, it simply said that a business doesn't have to cover it.

Right: preventing people from dying of AIDS violates the sincerely-held religious beliefs of some Christians. For them, their faith requires that some people who they disagree with die horrible deaths.

That's the implication I see here. Do you agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok... Agreement and disagreement.

1) I agree, that I don't know why that doctor has that position -
2) I agree, IMV it is as wrong to withhold this medication as it is to have an abortion - its about saving lives
3) I disagree that the edict prevents the medication from happening, you just go to another doctor because this is one doctor in all the doctors that there are

The compromise in Canada is that when a doctor has a moral objection to providing some medically indicated treatment, the doctor can refer the patient to another doctor to provide the care, but if no other doctor is available, the objecting doctor still has to provide the care themselves despite their objection.

I'd say that this is reasonable accommodation of a doctor's beliefs, but denying any care to the patient is unreasonable, IMO.

 

[Kenny]

Right: preventing people from dying of AIDS violates the sincerely-held religious beliefs of some Christians. For them, their faith requires that some people who they disagree with die horrible deaths.

That's the implication I see here. Do you agree?

Like I said, I don't agree with that position. It isn't an expression of love. (Edit - more direct - I agree)

 

[Kenny]

The compromise in Canada is that when a doctor has a moral objection to oroviding some medically indicated treatment, the doctor can refer the patient to another doctor to provide the care, but if no other doctor is available, the objecting doctor still has to provide the care themselves despite their objection.

I'd say that this is reasonable accommodation of a doctor's beliefs, but denying any care to the patient is unreasonable, IMO.

Too vague, or too all encompassing. There are probably exceptions. If a doctor has a problem doing an abortion out of the convenience of the mother but he is still forced to do so, I wouldn't hold to that law.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is a whole lot of "ifs" and unreasonably so. IMO

They are a lot of very realistic "ifs." IMO

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like I said, I don't agree with that position. It isn't an expression of love. (Edit - more direct - I agree)

I wasn't asking if you personally hold the position; I was asking if you agree that this is the implication of invoking "religious freedom" here: asking some Christians to participate in reducing the spread of HIV violates their religious beliefs, which implies that, for them, helping to spread HIV is a tenet of their religion.

 

[Kenny]

I wasn't asking if you personally hold the position; I was asking if you agree that this is the implication of invoking "religious freedom" here: asking some Christians to participate in reducing the spread of HIV violates their religious beliefs, which implies that, for them, helping to spread HIV is a tenet of their religion.

It is not in the tenet of my faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Too vague, or too all encompassing. There are probably exceptions. If a doctor has a problem doing an abortion out of the convenience of the mother but he is still forced to do so, I wouldn't hold to that law.

I have no problem holding a doctor to a responsibility that they took on voluntarily. I don't see that as "forcing."

The doctor is there by choice. The doctor decided to get a job in a facility that provides abortions. The doctor decided to pursue a specialty that includes abortions in its scope. If the doctor wanted to be sure that they never, ever had to be part of an abortion for any reason, they could have got a job in dermatology or at a fracture clinic. They're only in that situation because of their own choices; it's reasonable that they be held responsible for those choices, especially when lives are on the line.

The patient, OTOH, isn't there voluntarily. Whatever medical condition they have isn't their choice, and in an emergency situation, they probably had no say in where they would be treated: it's not like ambulance drivers take patient requests for which hospital to go to.

It's unfair - and IMO unethical - to compromise patient care just because the doctor doesn't want to fulfill commitments they freely accepted.

If the doctor's conscience was clear enough to take the paycheque for a job that sometimes includes abortions, they can damn well actually do their job... their whole job.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not in the tenet of my faith.

Not what I asked.

 

[Kenny]

If the doctor's conscience was clear enough to take the paycheque for a job that sometimes includes abortions, they can damn well actually do their job... their whole job.

I wholeheartedly disagree. An abortion for personal convenience (not at the risk of the mother) isn't what a doctor is there for. They are there (as with HIV medicine) - to heal and not destroy.

A religious exemption for sure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wholeheartedly disagree. An abortion for personal convenience (not at the risk of the mother) isn't what a doctor is there for. They are there (as with HIV medicine) - to heal and not destroy.

A religious exemption for sure.

No, we are talking about risk to the pregnant person.

In the case we're talking about, the choice is between that one doctor doing it and the abortion not happening at all.

If the patient's needs can be accommodated by just waiting a couple hours until a responsible doctor comes on shift, then that's the alternative to allow accommodation of the irresponsible doctor.

If the abortion can't wait a few hours - or can't wait for the patient to be transported to some other facility - then we're generally talking about a case where the patient is at risk of death without an abortion.