blog | facebook | twitter
C'MON C'MON THE CLUB IS OPEN
It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:59 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Drs May Refuse to Treat Gays/Others on "Moral Grounds&q
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:39 pm 
King Ghidorah
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 896
Location: Brooklyn
It's Michigan- but that's close enough:

http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm? ... petset=yes

_________________
"Does this mean I limit myself? Certainly. I don't listen to as much bullshit as other people do. I am happy to carry this limitation." -SA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:59 pm 
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:14 pm
Posts: 4116
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Oh this shit is just fucked up.

Hippocratic oath versus moral grounds.
10 rounds.
Winner takes all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:06 pm 
Friendship Farmer of the Year 2006
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:05 am
Posts: 7620
Location: The Cookie Capital of the World
I fail to see what's "moral" about denying people health care.

_________________
It was fifteen years ago, but I remember it like it was ten.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:06 pm 
Donewaiting.com Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:26 pm
Posts: 7648
Location: Columbus
Hey, pharmacists already have this luxury, so why not? Grrr... It makes me want to become a doctor just so I can refuse to treat crazy religious fanatics. Or assholes. Or fat people. Or Nickleback. Or, well, you see the point I'm making. I mean, wouldn't I be within my morals, my rights, to keep people with whom I disagree from prospering? Apparently these legislators think so.

EDIT: PS- this is mostly an academic (or, more correctly, a political) argument, as there's no way this sucker would stand up to a court challenge. Right? Right???

_________________
This place is like the fair, only it cost a dollar to get in and the rides are junked cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:26 pm 
groundrules wrote:
Hey, pharmacists already have this luxury, so why not? Grrr... It makes me want to become a doctor just so I can refuse to treat crazy religious fanatics. Or assholes. Or fat people. Or Nickleback. Or, well, you see the point I'm making. I mean, wouldn't I be within my morals, my rights, to keep people with whom I disagree from prospering? Apparently these legislators think so.

EDIT: PS- this is mostly an academic (or, more correctly, a political) argument, as there's no way this sucker would stand up to a court challenge. Right? Right???


I have heard of the refusal of some doctors to treat smokers...(...sorry...I heard of this too. Do not want to derail.)

Also there are some doctors who have problems with prescribing certain types of birth control (IUD) and will make referrals to others who are less "right to life". I heard of the pharmacists refusals to dispense BC pills also in some places.

I guess it is a matter of principle with some...... but I fail to see how any of these kinds of things mentioned in this thread uphold the Hypocratic Oath.

And then Vioxx got put back on the market. Why..with all the known problems? Do they want to get rid of a "health insurance burden" (old folks with arthritis)

Some of these things do make me wonder.

Just my opinion.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:07 pm 
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:23 pm
Posts: 3178
Location: Dublin, Ohio, USA
This is another in the continued effort of the radical religious right's (let's call them what they are, the American Taliban) assault on women's reproductive rights.

In Indiana, the Attorney General early this month began an "investigation" of Planned Parenthood over medical records. A week later, the same thing happened in Kansas. This is just an attempt to pick up where John Ashcroft left off last year. It didn't work at the Federal level, so the most far-right AG's are going after Planned Parenthood state-by-state. The purpose is clear - your medical records are no longer private, and can be seized by the government, the intent is to chill not just the thought of abortion, but of contraception knowledge. Hell, under Bush, we deny foreign humanitary aid to countries if they refuse to stop teaching about contraception and don't switch to the proven failure "abstinence-only" program.

In Virginia, Republicans have been attempting to put extremely strigent "health regulations" on abortion clinics, even though the Virginia State Department of Health says their unnecessary and would cause many to have to shut down, which I guess is the point, isn't it?

The point is - it's not just pharmacists, it's not just the state AG's - there is an emboldened radical minority that is attempting to undermine choice across the country, and most people are oblivious to it. That is, until the day they wake up and their rights have mysteriously disappeared, then they'll take notice.

_________________
Dig Me Out Podcast on iTunes.

Dig Me Out BLOG, Twitter and Facebook.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:17 pm 
Friendship Farmer of the Year 2006
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:05 am
Posts: 7620
Location: The Cookie Capital of the World
LLDrumgirl wrote:
I have heard of the refusal of some doctors to treat smokers...(...sorry...I heard of this too. Do not want to derail.)


Doctors have a right to discontinue treatment with patients that will not follow their recommendations.

Quote:
And then Vioxx got put back on the market. Why..with all the known problems?


I can find no evidence that this is true.

_________________
It was fifteen years ago, but I remember it like it was ten.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:47 pm 
Cookie wrote:
I fail to see what's "moral" about denying people health care.


Seems the doctors recommendation on the link in the first post of the thread is for gay people to "go straight" to have the right to medical treatment.

No?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:52 pm 
Friendship Farmer of the Year 2006
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:05 am
Posts: 7620
Location: The Cookie Capital of the World
LLDrumgirl wrote:
Cookie wrote:
I fail to see what's "moral" about denying people health care.


It's a waste of people's time and money for doctors to treat somebody to refuses to be treated.

Is there anything that you can't steer back to smoking? :roll:

_________________
It was fifteen years ago, but I remember it like it was ten.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:59 pm 
Friendship Farmer of the Year 2006
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:05 am
Posts: 7620
Location: The Cookie Capital of the World
LLDrumgirl wrote:
Seems the doctors recommendation on the link in the first post of the thread is for gay people to "go straight" to have the right to medical treatment.

No?


No.

Jesus, you are tiresome.

_________________
It was fifteen years ago, but I remember it like it was ten.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:00 pm 
You either did not read the disclaimer I put in there or chose to ignore it.

There were two "for instances" that I knew of that was similar to the thread theme.

Patients being refused treatment.

I am sorry the mere mention of one of them is such a fuse for you and that the moral implications of being refused treatment are ok, only in certain "for instances".

Concerning Vioxx..It has been in the news as of late. Taken off the market as many people reactions to the drug, some even fatal, now suddenly it's back on. I am surprised you could find no information at all concerning this topic.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:02 pm 
Cookie wrote:
LLDrumgirl wrote:
Seems the doctors recommendation on the link in the first post of the thread is for gay people to "go straight" to have the right to medical treatment.

No?


No.

Jesus, you are tiresome.


Well ok...

Hard copy....

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.

Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:03 pm 
Friendship Farmer of the Year 2006
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:05 am
Posts: 7620
Location: The Cookie Capital of the World
LLDrumgirl wrote:
You either did not read the disclaimer I put in there or chose to ignore it.


You edited it in there after I read it and you know it. You're so childish.

Quote:
There were two "for instances" that I knew of that was similar to the thread theme.

Patients being refused treatment.

I am sorry the mere mention of one of them is such a fuse for you and that the moral implications of being refused treatment are ok, only in certain "for instances".


Apples and oranges. A doctor telling you not to smoke has nothing to do with morality. It's called being a doctor.

Quote:
Concerning Vioxx..It has been in the news as of late. Taken off the market as many people reactions to the drug, some even fatal, now suddenly it's back on. I am surprised you could find no information at all concerning this topic.


Company that makes it hasn't said a word about it. Neither has anybody else that I could find by googling. I'll be happy to read any link that you can provide on the matter.

_________________
It was fifteen years ago, but I remember it like it was ten.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:11 pm 
Cookie wrote:
LLDrumgirl wrote:
You either did not read the disclaimer I put in there or chose to ignore it.


You edited it in there after I read it and you know it. You're so childish.

Quote:
There were two "for instances" that I knew of that was similar to the thread theme.

Patients being refused treatment.

I am sorry the mere mention of one of them is such a fuse for you and that the moral implications of being refused treatment are ok, only in certain "for instances".


Apples and oranges. A doctor telling you not to smoke has nothing to do with morality. It's called being a doctor.

Quote:
Concerning Vioxx..It has been in the news as of late. Taken off the market as many people reactions to the drug, some even fatal, now suddenly it's back on. I am surprised you could find no information at all concerning this topic.


Company that makes it hasn't said a word about it. Neither has anybody else that I could find by googling. I'll be happy to read any link that you can provide on the matter.


I would have to comb some newspaper articles in the last month. It is very easy to do. A bit time consuming. It would not be surprising for the pharmacy company that makes it to not say much about it.
Perhaps the Dispatch archives will reveal the articles......

As far as editing, I did not edit the first post in any fashion.
I even left out an 's on one of the others and chose not to go back and edit it.

So my typing is not so hot (factual) and your subjective analysis of what I post fits in the same category (opinion).


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:50 pm 
The Vioxx articles are on the Dispatch website, but they are not free. I paid for them the first time I read them.
They include about one introductory paragraph.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:25 pm 
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:23 pm
Posts: 3178
Location: Dublin, Ohio, USA
I'm not sure if either of you are familiar with the GodHatesFags people, but the daugher of leader Fred Phelps, Jael Phelps, is a nursing student who said that, despite the fact that she hates "fags," she won't discriminate when on the job (according to her interview on the Al Franken radio show, about two weeks ago). FWIW....

_________________
Dig Me Out Podcast on iTunes.

Dig Me Out BLOG, Twitter and Facebook.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:56 pm 
Wow....I didn't even bother entering the site after reading the first page...
So GodHatesSweden too, I see.... according to them?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:38 am 
King Ghidorah
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 896
Location: Brooklyn
timstepford wrote:
Jael Phelps, is a nursing student who said that, despite the fact that she hates "fags," she won't discriminate when on the job
awwww, how sweet.

On a personal GAY note I had major issues coming out to any physician (this before you took one look and thought *HOMO!*) And I always dreaded the pre-emptive contraceptive discussion question, "Are you sexually active?" (hmmmm...does eating pussy count doc?) HAHA. Nothing like a crude anecdote to get my point across. Wait. My point. I think like every profession, you've got good ones- and bad ones- but it's frightening (though currently not so out of character) to think that the government would go out it's way to protect and encourage the bad ones.

_________________
"Does this mean I limit myself? Certainly. I don't listen to as much bullshit as other people do. I am happy to carry this limitation." -SA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:26 am 
Jet Jaguar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:19 am
Posts: 410
Location: Behind you
Can an ass doctor refuse treament to a patient for being incredibly anul-retentive? (Don't "nail" me me on spelling if it's wrong..... I don't give a fuck). I'm gonna go smoke a fuckin' cigarette.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:03 am 
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 1:10 pm
Posts: 6351
timstepford wrote:
I'm not sure if either of you are familiar with the GodHatesFags people, but the daugher of leader Fred Phelps, Jael Phelps, is a nursing student who said that, despite the fact that she hates "fags," she won't discriminate when on the job (according to her interview on the Al Franken radio show, about two weeks ago). FWIW....


1. I didn't read the article, but doctors should be able to decide who their patients are under any circumstances.

2. It's pretty obvious these (witch)doctors aren't the type of quality medical professionals anyone should be trusting with their life/health.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:33 am 
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:23 pm
Posts: 3178
Location: Dublin, Ohio, USA
Jawbreaker wrote:
I didn't read the article, but doctors should be able to decide who their patients are under any circumstances.


So if you're African-American in a small Mississippi or Alabama town, and the only doctor in town is a rascist, to bad for you, huh...

_________________
Dig Me Out Podcast on iTunes.

Dig Me Out BLOG, Twitter and Facebook.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:07 am 
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:14 pm
Posts: 4116
Location: Columbus, Ohio
I believe Jawbreaker is going by the theory that doctors who refuse to treat certain patients (i.e. gay patients or black patients) will eventually lose all their business because the rest of the population will be smart enough to boycott the doc.

But we all know that doesn't work, right?

This guy was on the Al Franken show the other day and said he didn't think the Civil Rights Act should have been passed because the government shouldn't tell business owners how to run their businesses. Franken said, "So, a restaraunt should be able to refuse service to black people?" And the guy said, "Yes, but they'll have to face the consequences because other people will stop coming to that business."

Franken and I were both incredulous at this thought. Because if the Civil Rights Act hadn't been passed, this country would still be segregated. I know it would be. 3/4 of my family dislike/distrust black people and would prefer that they didn't have to interact with them on a daily basis. Even more of my family feels that way about gay people.

So many people are angry or apathetic. If my parents found out their famly doctor refused to treat gay people they wouldn't care. They wouldn't boycott the doctor. It wouldn't even cross their mind. And I bet it wouldn't cross a lot of people's minds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:16 am 
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 1:10 pm
Posts: 6351
timstepford wrote:
too bad for you, huh...


No. I would say: instead of abolishing Freedoms of Association, Assembly, Speech, and Property, those wishing to fight racism should pool their (own) resources to help those affected, in whatever manner they deem necessary. Some examples: social/economic ostracization, rallying the necessary resources to provide "non-racist" medical care, transportation/relocation etc...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:05 am 
Godzilla
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:14 pm
Posts: 4116
Location: Columbus, Ohio
I think we need to start a Doctors With Borders organization so the people who need help in the United States can get it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:45 pm 
timstepford wrote:
Jawbreaker wrote:
I didn't read the article, but doctors should be able to decide who their patients are under any circumstances.


So if you're African-American in a small Mississippi or Alabama town, and the only doctor in town is a rascist, to bad for you, huh...


I have an African-American friend in her 70's and she was looking for a referral for a new doctor. I told her about mine.

First question she asked was, "Does he see black patients?"

I could hardly believe she would ask that but then she told me a few stories that had happened in her past and I started to understand why.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group






Buy a Premium BlogAd