Should religous groups be allowed to control the health services they provide?

[shesulsa]

Perhaps because it's one of the most prolific and most-often-sought procedures? certainly more than plastic surgery or organ transplant.

I bet if those millions of unborn were actually born we'd all be bitching about the millions of welfare babies breaking the system, eh? Oh ... wait ....

 

[Cryozombie]

Perhaps because it's one of the most prolific and most-often-sought procedures? certainly more than plastic surgery or organ transplant.

I bet if those millions of unborn were actually born we'd all be bitching about the millions of welfare babies breaking the system, eh? Oh ... wait ....

That doesn't address the question: Why is it ok for my Hospital to refuse to do them because its not economically viable, but a horrific violation of the womans uterus that "Saint Valentines of the Apostle" won't do it for Moral reasons?

 

[Cryozombie]

And I'm still trying to understand... if we HAVE to fund these procedures/drugs thru Planned Parenthood, as was argued a few months ago isn't that a viable alternative to choosing a Religious Hospital and trying to force them to perform the procedure despite "Seperation of Church and State"?

 

[Cryozombie]

Perhaps because it's one of the most prolific and most-often-sought procedures? certainly more than plastic surgery or organ transplant.

Also, I'm not sure what that has to do with the argument I laid out... I don't see how it matters how "in demand" a service is; As I stated above, we also do not do Abortions, in addition to Plastic Surgery or Organ transplant... so really all three apply, even tho you only chose to respond to the 2.

 

[Cryozombie]

And one last thought here for the night: Regardless of the intention, SHOULD we allow the government to dip its fingers into Religion and dictate its practice? The founding fathers didn't think so... would you (you the population, not you specifically Geo) tolerate it if they mandated that everyone, regardless of belief go to Mass on Sundays and take communion? Of course not.

I see these issues as virtually the same. While I can see a Certain amount of regulation on religious freedoms (Obviously we can't have Thuggee cults running around killing people) a line has to be drawn someplace regarding Free Exercise of Religion, and I have yet to see a good argument put forward as to why a Religion should be made to provide birth control or Abortions when it is clear that their ARE alternative means for obtaining these goods and services; other places a woman can go to get them.

I am certainly not AGAINST either of these practices; but I think there is more "Politics" to these arguments than actual consideration of the facts. For example, While I understand that costs for Birth Control can vary widely depending on what types a person is using, at the same time I know that the difference between a Generic Prescription for common birth control pills with and without insurance is a whole $6.00 US. If you can't get them free. (Which my Ex-wife used to do, so I know it IS possible) I know that if you can't get free condoms a box of 40 can be had for under 10 bucks. So I am really uncertain how allowing Religious institutions to freely practice their faith is restricting a woman's reproductive rights, and just looking for an educated insightful answer to that question.

 

[granfire]

Why do the patient's rights trump the doctors? I asked before but, no one bothered to answer.

The doctor has the right not to perform a service - assuming by him doing so the patient is not in danger.
After all they do make you swear the oath....
Well anyhow, as long as alternative practitioners are available.

However, once you remove it from the individual and go towards the institution....
See the deal here?

And to remove the misogynist aspect:
Scientology does not believe in mental illness...
Should your scientology believing healthcare provider be allowed to scratch anti depressants or other medications for mental illness off the list of provided services?

 

[Cryozombie]

Theoretically, yes, and then if you needed those meds, you would go to someone who would provide them to you... not force that provider to give them to you, right?

 

[Cryozombie]

And to remove the misogynist aspect:
Scientology does not believe in mental illness...
Should your scientology believing healthcare provider be allowed to scratch anti depressants or other medications for mental illness off the list of provided services?

I was thinking about this on the ride home today, and another thing occurred to me... would you WANT treatment from the doctor who was only doing it because he was mandated to? Think about that for a second. What would stop him from say, prescribing you the most expensive Birth Control pill available, with no generic, simply because he was forced to? Or the one with the least effective rating?

I think about other services, if you had a tattooist who's absolutely, positively under no Circumstances would tattoo a S.O.'s name on you, and you force him to, would you want the service he is providing? What about a Chef who refuses to cook a steak anything but Rare, because "what am I a line cook? No, I am a food artiste!" would you force him to make you a well done steak, and expect a quality, uncharred, edible, spit free piece of meat? Or in those cases would you go elsewhere. I know I would.

 

[granfire]

I was thinking about this on the ride home today, and another thing occurred to me... would you WANT treatment from the doctor who was only doing it because he was mandated to? Think about that for a second. What would stop him from say, prescribing you the most expensive Birth Control pill available, with no generic, simply because he was forced to? Or the one with the least effective rating?

I think about other services, if you had a tattooist who's absolutely, positively under no Circumstances would tattoo a S.O.'s name on you, and you force him to, would you want the service he is providing? What about a Chef who refuses to cook a steak anything but Rare, because "what am I a line cook? No, I am a food artiste!" would you force him to make you a well done steak, and expect a quality, uncharred, edible, spit free piece of meat? Or in those cases would you go elsewhere. I know I would.

the question is not whether the individual must or not perform the service.

The question is on whether religious groups may omit certain services from their plans, no?

And as it stands right now, those religiously funded omissions are misogynist....

 

[crushing]

And as it stands right now, those religiously funded omissions are misogynist....

It seems that the word misogynist has taken on a new meaning lately.

 

[shesulsa]

What we're really talking about here is that the religious organization controls a medical services provider. Medical service availability should not be dictated by religious principles - it is science and should be treated as such.

I see a difference between the state telling a religious organization that they cannot do X just because lots of people don't like it and telling a religious organization that they cannot refuse certain medical or health procedures based on their religious beliefs alone.

Here is the flip side of that argument: the church of religious science here in the PNW where children have died because their parents refused to get their children adequate medical treatment comes under fire, though no legal action can be taken upon them, only the parents of the children who end up going to jail. Should the government be allowed to interfere with those parents practicing their religion (praying for healing and rejecting health sciences to treat their children)?

If so, what is the difference there?

 

[Big Don]

The doctor has the right not to perform a service - assuming by him doing so the patient is not in danger.
After all they do make you swear the oath....
Well anyhow, as long as alternative practitioners are available.

However, once you remove it from the individual and go towards the institution....
See the deal here?

And to remove the misogynist aspect:
Scientology does not believe in mental illness...
Should your scientology believing healthcare provider be allowed to scratch anti depressants or other medications for mental illness off the list of provided services?

This Hippocratic Oath:
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement: To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher's sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life
Yeah, I don't think you want doctors following the Hippocratic Oath as much as you think...

 

[elder999]

Yeah, I don't think you want doctors following the Hippocratic Oath as much as you think...

That Hippocratic Oath hasn't been used in a long time. The bolded line wasn't included in the classic English translation, which itself hasn't been used since 1870. The version most used in the U.S-when it's sworn at all-was written in 1964.

So, no-not that Hippocratic Oath...:lol:

 

[granfire]

It seems that the word misogynist has taken on a new meaning lately.

Hon, when we are talking about something that pretty much only effects women and is as such under scrutiny, damn straight it's sexist.

 

[crushing]

Hon, when we are talking about something that pretty much only effects women and is as such under scrutiny, damn straight it's sexist.

Yes, I agree sexist is the appropriate term.

 

[Cryozombie]

Here is the flip side of that argument: the church of religious science here in the PNW where children have died because their parents refused to get their children adequate medical treatment comes under fire, though no legal action can be taken upon them, only the parents of the children who end up going to jail. Should the government be allowed to interfere with those parents practicing their religion (praying for healing and rejecting health sciences to treat their children)?

Honestly... I don't know. I weigh my duty and responsibility to someone elses children and families against their basic rights as parents... From a Moral Standpoint I want to say yes, but from a Constitutionally Legal standpoint I want to say no... so the best answer I can give you is I don't know.

I will say, however, In my mind the issue here is that this differs from the cases being discussed, in that if one "Religious Hospital" says "No Way!" to Birth Control or Abortions, you can always go to an organization like Planned Parenthood or a Non-secular hospital... whereas the child in your example is not being refused treatment, his family is refusing to take him for treatment. Yes, it's still a freedom of religion issue, but IMO a much more muddy one from the moral standpoint, in that the child has no choice, the woman (or man, even in the case of health coverage for Birth Control) does have a choice to go elsewhere.

 

[granfire]

Honestly... I don't know. I weigh my duty and responsibility to someone elses children and families against their basic rights as parents... From a Moral Standpoint I want to say yes, but from a Constitutionally Legal standpoint I want to say no... so the best answer I can give you is I don't know.

I will say, however, In my mind the issue here is that this differs from the cases being discussed, in that if one "Religious Hospital" says "No Way!" to Birth Control or Abortions, you can always go to an organization like Planned Parenthood or a Non-secular hospital... whereas the child in your example is not being refused treatment, his family is refusing to take him for treatment. Yes, it's still a freedom of religion issue, but IMO a much more muddy one from the moral standpoint, in that the child has no choice, the woman (or man, even in the case of health coverage for Birth Control) does have a choice to go elsewhere.

The choice may be hypothetical though.
While we do have a broad coverage in the nation, not all places are equal, and the limiting factor for an area to have adequate healthcare is also limiting mobility to seek out alternatives: Money.

Just the other day I drove past a 'hospital' that was not much bigger than a large ranch style house.
I thought I lived in a rural area...but by golly compared to that place this here is Metropolis!

 

[shesulsa]

And I can keep on repeating that there is no planned parenthood, no free clinic, only the catholic services provided in some towns. We still do have towns here that are big enough to make the map but aren't big enough for a stop light. They are remote and lacking in care and services. They are ... poor. And they may keep getting poorer if the populations continue to rise because no one can afford to drive nor take bus nor train out. If they hitchhike, we usually find them in ravines in the Gifford Pinchot forest.

 

[Cryozombie]

I must have missed that, This is the first time I've seen you say that... previously you just kept repeating "what options". That aside, I see where you are coming from now...

But...

Does that Justify giving up our rights? You say yes, but of course I see you on other threads saying "Another right we just gave up" so I dunno what to think about that either...

Let me do some research, and I'll get back to you.

 

[Cryozombie]

And a quick question before I run off for the night... One of the "Catholic Directives" they use to govern Healthcare is that they will not perform Assisted Suicides. Should that be required as well? Should they have to help you die if you choose to do so?