Doctor religious exemption hypothetical.

[koshergrl]

Do you just not understand English, or what?

About a half dozen people have said, yes, the hospital absolutely does have a right not to hire doctors who state they will not perform certain life saving procedures because it's against their religion.

And I've thanked the people who have been willing to weigh in on the issue.

And they are perfectly within their rights to fire them for not informing them they won't perform certain procedures, and then refusing treatment later.

Did you mean "fire"?

Ah me...

 

[Cecilie1200]

How do you force them to treat?

Put them in camps and threaten to torture and kill their families if they don't?

Yank their medical license.

Depending on the situation, I'd say go through the normal verbal/written/final chain.

Excepting that we're never talking about the actual employers having a problem with religious people and their religious objections. If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about it AT ALL.

What we're always talking about is a bunch of self-righteous, controlling jerkwads who want to dictate what someone else's job should include from outside the employer/employee paradigm, simply because they think they know what's right for everyone else.

 

[koshergrl]

Yank their medical license.

Depending on the situation, I'd say go through the normal verbal/written/final chain.

Excepting that we're never talking about the actual employers having a problem with religious people and their religious objections. If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about it AT ALL.

What we're always talking about is a bunch of self-righteous, controlling jerkwads who want to dictate what someone else's job should include from outside the employer/employee paradigm, simply because they think they know what's right for everyone else.

Cecilie, I think this is probably too advanced for most of the bozos on this thread...

 

[earlycuyler]

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.

The Dr. would have had ample time to make his religious convictions known. As a Dr working an ER, he should also be well aware that his religious convictions would at some point effect the lives of the people he treats in an ER, so I say throw his ass in the slammer, and sue his ass for malpractice. Thats just an uneducated opinion. Wouldn't he violate the Hippocratic oath ?

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

The Dr. would have had ample time to make his religious convictions known. As a Dr working an ER, he should also be well aware that his religious convictions would at some point effect the lives of the people he treats in an ER, so I say throw his ass in the slammer, and sue his ass for malpractice. Thats just an uneducated opinion. Wouldn't he violate the Hippocratic oath ?

So no right for religious exception in this instance?

Thanks for responding.

BTW, the Hippocratic Oath is non-binding (legally speaking)

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, denying a JW a job that he states he will do, because he's a JW is religious discrimination.

The OP was based on the premise that the Doctor refused to do the required duties, not that he stated he would do them.



>>>>

The OP was based on a completely ridiculous and unrealistic premise, so I see no real reason to feel bound by it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you just not understand English, or what?

About a half dozen people have said, yes, the hospital absolutely does have a right not to hire doctors who state they will not perform certain life saving procedures because it's against their religion.

And they are perfectly within their rights to hire them for not informing them they won't perform certain procedures, and then refusing treatment later.

Exactly. As much as the left tries to hide behind outrage on behalf of the employers, it's NEVER been been about that. It's always been about them barging into the work relationship from the outside and imposing their own views and whims on it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Depending on the situation, I'd say go through the normal verbal/written/final chain.

Excepting that we're never talking about the actual employers having a problem with religious people and their religious objections. If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about it AT ALL.

What we're always talking about is a bunch of self-righteous, controlling jerkwads who want to dictate what someone else's job should include from outside the employer/employee paradigm, simply because they think they know what's right for everyone else.

Cecilie, I think this is probably too advanced for most of the bozos on this thread...

Or too honest.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The Dr. would have had ample time to make his religious convictions known. As a Dr working an ER, he should also be well aware that his religious convictions would at some point effect the lives of the people he treats in an ER, so I say throw his ass in the slammer, and sue his ass for malpractice. Thats just an uneducated opinion. Wouldn't he violate the Hippocratic oath ?

First of all, the Hippocratic Oath isn't legally binding. Never has been. Second of all, actually taking the oath is far from standard any more. It's an ideal, not an actual vow.

Sheesh.

 

[fred1369]

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.

No, they are not required to fill BC pills if they don't want to. They are required to tell the customer what time the other pharmacist will be in or where the next drugstore is.

 

[jack113]

Absolutely. If a person is not going to perform the duties required of the job, then don't hire them. They aren't being excluded because of their religion, they are excluding themselves because they won't do the work. It's not that difficult to comprehend, if you really want to.

No, I get that. Legally, can a business refuse to hire based on this matter.

Yes. The duties of the job being understood, you can choose not to hire someone if they say they won't do those duties, obviously. If you were hiring a bartender and an applicant said he would not serve alcohol to your customers, then of course you are well within your rights to hire someone else who would. You would not have to know why the first person would not serve alcohol.

What happened to the doctors oath To do no harm? It seems that when these doctors take their oath it's as meaningless as the oath politicians take when being sworn into office.

A pharmacist does not make the medical decision as to what a person should be using for drugs they are simply a dispenser of prescription drugs the doctor orders and anything else is god playing. If the pharmacist or doctor thinks they have a right to play god they are in the wrong profession.

All this religious nonsense is supported by the insurance cons and corporations to scam the worker out of the insurance they pay for through payroll deductions.

Their was a time doctors would stop and help accident victims because they honored their Hippocratic oath and for their life saving help they were sued by the same people who life they saved so the doctor now will just pass by the accident without a second glance.

The American public seems to become more and more brainwashed as each day goes by and keeps supporting their own destruction with this hypocritical religious attitude that has nothing to do with law or good support for the public. Religion belongs in the church not in business or government.

As far as hiring a hospital or any other business has a right to hire or not hire anyone they choose.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Well then, until it happens don't worry about it.

Okay, then re-elect Obama. Until all the BS you claim will happen does happen, you shouldn't worry about it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The paramedic who infused the saline solution would transfuse the blood...problem solved.

Administering saline and transfusing blood are two different things. Blood transfusions are not within a Paramedic's scope of practice or training.

 

[Inthemiddle]

In the hypothetical, the paramedic infused saline in the field. Did he do that on his own, or did he get doctor's orders? If he got orders, how did he get them?

First of all, it depends on the locale. In some places, Paramedics and other emergency responders are licensed with direct authority to perform certain tasks and administer certain treatments. In other areas, they operate under a medical director. In these cases, the medical director issues standing orders for many basic situations. For example, the medical director may issue orders that all patients be administered oxygen, that any patient presenting burns of a certain severity be administered Ringers, etc. For more complicated situations, the medical director may be on the radio and in communication with the ambulance, giving specific orders for whatever it is with which the patient presents.

Administering saline is an entirely different thing than transfusing blood, just like administering saline is entirely different than administering a morphine IV push. Damn near any idiot can learn how to administer saline correctly, and there's almost no time when administering saline will be a bad thing. But an IV push (for example), or a blood transfusion is an entirely different situation.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What would happen if they had an accident with multiple victims? Would the single ER doctor choose who gets to live?

It's called triage. Patients are evaluated for the severity of their condition and possibility of successful treatment, and are treated accordingly. This means that, yes, essentially, medical professionals dealing with a multiple patient emergency must made decisions as to who to treat first, that can and do result in patients dying that might have survived with more personnel on hand. For example, patient's that have no pulse upon initial assessment are classified with the lowest priority. It's better to spend your time on someone who, for example, is breathing and awake but bleeding out fast, than to bother trying to do CPR on someone who may or may not be able to be revived.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Seriously...I reject the premise of this hypothetical.

I assume we are talking about reasonable people here.

A reasonable person would foresee the difficulties and make changes/arraignments to avoid those pitfalls.

Ah. So a reasonable person who is a pharmacist will do the same, so as to be able to avoid the pitfalls associated with violating the law if the law required them to dispense the morning after pill. Also, a reasonable minister would foresee the difficulties and make changes and arrangements to avoid the pitfalls of dealing with the laws allowing gay marriage.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I see it differently. A Jehovah's Witness can be a doctor without ever being put in a life or death blood transfusion situation and a Muslim can be a doctor without ever facing the life or death "man dipped in pork fat" scenario.

And I can be a McDonald's cashier without ever being put in a situation where I have to decide whether to serve a black person.

 

[koshergrl]

What would happen if they had an accident with multiple victims? Would the single ER doctor choose who gets to live?

It's called triage. Patients are evaluated for the severity of their condition and possibility of successful treatment, and are treated accordingly. This means that, yes, essentially, medical professionals dealing with a multiple patient emergency must made decisions as to who to treat first, that can and do result in patients dying that might have survived with more personnel on hand. For example, patient's that have no pulse upon initial assessment are classified with the lowest priority. It's better to spend your time on someone who, for example, is breathing and awake but bleeding out fast, than to bother trying to do CPR on someone who may or may not be able to be revived.

ER docs make decisions like this every day.

It's one of the reasons they used to say "doctors don't list themselves as organ donors" lol...they don't want to be in an ER with a really COMMITTED pro-organ transplant doc on duty.

 

[jack113]

I see it differently. A Jehovah's Witness can be a doctor without ever being put in a life or death blood transfusion situation and a Muslim can be a doctor without ever facing the life or death "man dipped in pork fat" scenario.

And I can be a McDonald's cashier without ever being put in a situation where I have to decide whether to serve a black person.

Standard anti American racist attitude.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I see it differently. A Jehovah's Witness can be a doctor without ever being put in a life or death blood transfusion situation and a Muslim can be a doctor without ever facing the life or death "man dipped in pork fat" scenario.

And I can be a McDonald's cashier without ever being put in a situation where I have to decide whether to serve a black person.

Standard anti American racist attitude.

No, it's a comparison of like rationales, to illustrate the folly therein.