Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Everyone has the same religious rights. No one has the right to refuse to do the job they were hired to do.Does that mean they have the same religious rights as an employee at McDonald's? Because, if they do, this whole thread is a waste of time.
The EEOC disagrees with you.
.
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
religious pharmacists are not required to fill a prescription for birth control pills if it violates their religious beliefs.
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
That's murder.
but I don't think jehovahs can be doctors since they pray for healing. not 100% on that.
religious pharmacists are not required to fill a prescription for birth control pills if it violates their religious beliefs.
I think it's abortion pills they are not required to fill....and it isn't a matter of life or death, at least not for the mother.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
That's murder.
but I don't think jehovahs can be doctors since they pray for healing. not 100% on that.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
An Afro fag rapes your stupid, fascist ass and gives you AIDS. Should the Afro be convicted or celebrated? Correct answer: BOTH!
Short Answer: No.
Trauma medicine is a life or death situation. If a doctor is a Jehovah's Witness and cannot transfuse blood, it kind of ridiculous to have him/her covering the ER, don't you agree? If a hospital administrator allowed this to happen, the only logical ensuing question from the hospital would be: Do you want me to write you a check now or would you rather wait for a cash deposit?
How do you force them to treat?
Put them in camps and threaten to torture and kill their families if they don't?
The larger issue is, if we are going to allow physicians to refuse on religious grounds, where is the line.
Yeah, well yanking medical licenses is not something the AMA does willingly or often.
I just don't see a medical doctor who is averse to treating patients with blood transfusions working in an ER. They have certain ethical standards, and I think if any doctor exists who would refuse to treat with blood transfusion, he would make that known to the hospital that employed him and defer working ER.
The larger issue is, if we are going to allow physicians to refuse on religious grounds, where is the line.
What line, shithead? Where to draw the line if you let people be free? I'll tell you, shithead, exactly between one person's business and the next person's business.
I just don't see a medical doctor who is averse to treating patients with blood transfusions working in an ER. They have certain ethical standards, and I think if any doctor exists who would refuse to treat with blood transfusion, he would make that known to the hospital that employed him and defer working ER.
I just don't see a medical doctor who is averse to treating patients with blood transfusions working in an ER. They have certain ethical standards, and I think if any doctor exists who would refuse to treat with blood transfusion, he would make that known to the hospital that employed him and defer working ER.
That's exactly right. The only way the OP's hypothetical question could be any more stupid is if he made this anti-blood doctor an employee of a blood bank. And, the point of his hypothetical is to use an emergency situation as excuse to throw out all religious rights (actually, the freedom of conscience), which is also ridiculous.
Liberalism is the ridiculous built upon a foundation of the ridiculous.
