Lob a Chunk o' Feedback at Blog d'Elisson
I have to agree with you on that, especially with hospitals. On the other hand, if a doctor in private practice wishes to go with his beliefs, that is the doctor's business. He just should be prepared for the consequences of losing patients.
Just my opinion.
I was just following orders.
Religious hospitals around here do not, as a general rule, do abortion. Community hospitals do. There oughtn't be a law, but I fail to see the big deal. Performing an abortion endangers the soul of a practicing Catholic. Should the law have the power to force a man to sacrifice his soul? "We're sorry, but you can't become a doctor because you have some beliefs that conflict with our agenda. here's a nice McDonalds you can manage instead" I know a few doctors that came to their calling through a great deal of prayer and a strong desire to help people. They should just stop being doctors because someone wants an abortion? if you want an abortion and your doctor doesn't want to give you one, you're free to find another doctor. Period. There are more doctors in the phone book than you can shake a stick at, and the same goes for pharmacies. Using the law or a lawsuit to force a man to endanger his immortal soul so they can comply to the desires of a non believer is patently wrong.
If the doctor is the only game in town? if you can't get an abortion without driving 600 miles? if the only parmacy in town won't sell you condoms OR birth control OR ru486, OR whatever, maybe you'd better move. But I cannot imagine such a situation is common in the continental US.
Last I saw, "performing abortions" was not in the job description of most doctors. Some may elect to do so; others may not...and I'm unaware of any hospitals (aside from abortion clinics) that obligate the physicians who work there to perform them. But with respect to pharmacists, "dispensing medication according to prescriptions written by licensed physicians" seems to be the order of the day.
It just seems to me that this law is of dubious merit...and it opens the door to a whole host of problems.
doctors have been sued for not performing abortions. job description or not. how else would you prevent this?
Limit awards in frivolous lawsuits for starters. That might even help to get the cost of health care down as well.
Not a bad start, Richard. It's a complex question wiht no easy answers. I hate all this kind of crap, from bith sides of the aisle.
Interesting piece but what about the Hippocratic Oath and "first do no harm"? I've gladly cleaned up every bodily fluid that has come from a human being, stayed with my dying patients until their last breath then washed their bodies for the funeral home. However, I could never do something that would intentionally kill one of them. I prefer to leave that to writers.
Our President let us know....he's the "decider". Not so much on the whole "thinking" thing...but decider? Indeed.
I agree with you. And if they have a problem with abortion, just go work at a Catholic hospital. They don't do them there...
As for Obama... can't do it. I just can't pull the lever and vote Socialist.
Indeed doktors schuld know venn to follow zee orders zey are giffen -- even venn it involve killing zee unvanted population.
You know it Bou but I am still wavering between the lesser of two evils and voting for Bob Barr or a write-in instead.
It is just social engineering clothed in GOP double speak..and as usual with social engineering the gotdam politicians do not think about the adverse repercussions...they just pass the damn laws and let the judges sort it out..and then the public either lauds or blames the courts for 'passing law'!
I would vote for a constitutional amendment that requires EVERY law passed by congress to first be approved by the supreme court. And in that amendment would be a clause that requires congress to rescind two laws before they can pass any new one..
Elisson--
Now that I've issued my snarky comment, please excuse my adding some serious thoughts:
(1) You can't simply instruct doctors to work at another hospital when (under the dimocrats' coming socialized medicine plans) all hospitals will be government funded.
(2) Interns do not have a choice about which (as you aptly put it) "butcher shop" they work at.
(3) You say: This is a continuing pattern for Bush et al.: the failure to perform due diligence and think about the ramifications of something that is done to please a certain constituency. I'm afraid you'll have to provide some evidence that this lame-duck president is motived purely by political self-interest. Even if you believe his policy is mistaken, impuning his motives hardly advances that argument.
Just a quick comment. There is a common misconception that RU-486 is the "morning after pill". RU-486 is an actual abortifaecient which terminates a pregnancy that has already implated in the uterus (sp?) while the "morning after pill" also known as Plan B prevent pregnancy (like a birth control pill) by not allowing an egg to implant and/or preventing the sperm from reaching the egg.
Every store you go into has a sigh=n that states, "We have the right to refuse services to anyone"
Don't doctors have that right, as long as it isn't endangering a life.
Who will you guys bitch about after GW is gone? He wasn't my first choice, but as we see again, the better choice, just like with McCain.
Wow what is this world coming too? Pretty soon they will sue the gun store owner who sold a gun to someone who intended to commit murder. Oh wait that is already happening. But if you know they are going to commit murder...
I htink people think of this as the slippery slope. I think this law rather than being the slippery slope, is the peg being driven in that slope to prevent civilazation's
ongoing slide.
Commenting by HaloScan
