Should doctors be able to refuse service to gay people.

Posted by: komododragon8

Vote
210 Total Votes
1

No

174 votes
35 comments
2

Yes and with any procedure

22 votes
12 comments
3

Yes but not emergency service

14 votes
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Preston says2015-08-31T20:03:16.5090645Z
And the first Troll shows up
Preston says2015-08-31T20:03:58.8009356Z
Classic Version of the Hippocratic Oath I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else. I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work. Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves. What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about. If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot. A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
132sque says2015-08-31T20:04:22.0439695Z
Was just thinking the same :/
Preston says2015-08-31T20:04:22.6222883Z
Notice there is no clause for sexual orientation or doctors faith.
komododragon8 says2015-08-31T20:06:02.0885259Z
Preston: what did you mean when you said the first troll ahd shown up.
triangle.128k says2015-08-31T20:08:46.9503827Z
According to this, doctors should be able to refuse a life-saving procedure to a homosexual leaving them to die.
Preston says2015-08-31T20:10:53.7011952Z
@Komodo, someone voted no, simply because they could. No one who actually has knowledge of doctors and their jobs/oath would say no, thus i dub him le troll
komododragon8 says2015-08-31T20:17:27.9781226Z
Preston: I agree that no real doctor would refuse to treat someone because their gay, but ultimately some people will try. Because of this we should address whether or not "religious freedom" allows people to refuse giving life saving treatment to others based on their sexual orientation (personally I dont think it should).
Preston says2015-08-31T20:19:21.4694311Z
Religion has nothing to do with an oath you take that specificly says " I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses" You swore on your god when you took this oath that you would help everyone, regardless of your personal vindications.
komododragon8 says2015-08-31T20:26:45.4256143Z
Preston: To what extent does this oath have legal power. Do doctors who refuse service to gay people based on their opposition to homosexuality get prosecuted.
Greg4586 says2015-08-31T21:50:44.7921206Z
Komo, the point of the oath isn't to lock doctors into certain actions legally. The point of the oath is to ensure the doctors follow the path of saving lives and that their actions should be for the benefit of the patient.
komododragon8 says2015-08-31T23:06:33.1973847Z
Greg: I agree but the fact remains that their will be some doctors who wont care for gay people.
Varrack says2015-09-01T00:07:55.3981884Z
Teaparty1 and GOPLOVER both voted yes. What in the world..
triangle.128k says2015-09-01T00:09:42.2232817Z
@Varrack Teaparty1 and GOPLOVER are a thousand miles to the right on the spectrum, as their name suggests.
tajshar2k says2015-09-01T00:11:02.7369461Z
I honestly feel bad for conservatives who aren't as crazy.
triangle.128k says2015-09-01T01:32:42.7779996Z
Aaaand Haroush voted yes. We have 3 radicals now.
Haroush says2015-09-01T01:35:20.8538129Z
I guess social conservatives MUST take on some liberal stances in order to be accepted? Pssh.. Acceptance don't mean nothing, most of these MUST ACCEPT social movements are nothing more than an attempt to exterminate social conservatives.
Varrack says2015-09-01T01:38:14.0502789Z
Yeah the crazy ones make us look bad as a whole. I'm not surprised at Haroush's vote tbh.
tajshar2k says2015-09-01T01:39:40.0552841Z
Haroush, explain the logic in your vote.
Haroush says2015-09-01T01:39:49.5499353Z
When will society learn to not attempt to entirely exclude a group of people based on their political beliefs. To exclude certain ideas and thoughts from society creates terrorist in it's self.
Haroush says2015-09-01T01:50:23.4443987Z
I am just a person who believes in liberty a lot.
tajshar2k says2015-09-01T01:51:32.2603453Z
Ok, I have the liberty to kill somebody because they are a redneck and are absolutely useless to our nation. Got it.
tajshar2k says2015-09-01T01:56:09.1206441Z
God Bless Neo-Cons and their morals :D
triangle.128k says2015-09-01T02:00:14.5305365Z
Liberty for everybody except the minority that is.
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:01:40.3795380Z
Okay there is liberty, freedom, and anarchy.. Now you are talking about anarchy.
triangle.128k says2015-09-01T02:02:42.3275351Z
Letting a doctor deny possibly life-saving medical service to a person for being homosexual, I guess that counts as liberty.
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:05:08.6448777Z
Well I didn't exclude emergency services. Also, this would be considered liberty @ Triangle
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:07:24.8297460Z
The minority has a choice to go to that doctor or not or perhaps another doctor if he/she doesn't accept him/her.
triangle.128k says2015-09-01T02:11:51.0103945Z
Okay, so a homosexual will have to go driving from clinic to clinic to find a doctor that will accept them?
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:13:32.1341005Z
Now do I believe a hospital has a right to deny someone based on their sexual orientation? No. Unless they are a private hospital, but only in situations which would exclude many of the special circumstances which requires for someone to be treated because of their sexual orientation.
triangle.128k says2015-09-01T02:16:18.7431685Z
So basically, someone can deny a homosexual pneumonia treatment because of "freedom?" Because that's exactly what can happen, suffering patients will be denied service because of homophobes.
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:18:16.6955246Z
No @ Triangle, Based upon the idea there would be many other doctors there.. The possibility there is another doctor there with the same beliefs is slim to none. Furthermore, if the prospective patient has evidence there was visitations to other clinics without service , it would be required for this person to be treated whether the doctor likes it or not.
tajshar2k says2015-09-01T02:21:07.8286216Z
Off topic, but if you are for liberty, why are you against free trade?
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:22:14.0591697Z
No, pneumonia is a serious life threatening illness. This is something that must be treated right away,
triangle.128k says2015-09-01T02:22:28.3875380Z
But my question is, what kind of person is that homophobic? That's just pathetic to leave it to another person because of their homophobia.
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:26:39.0943653Z
Is it homophobia or is it religious beliefs.
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:27:17.0189377Z
?
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:28:29.7792033Z
Free trade is a subjective idea when referring to liberty.
triangle.128k says2015-09-01T02:28:39.0615141Z
Right, because there are many more sane Christians that aren't homophobic and then say "The bible says so!"
Haroush says2015-09-01T02:39:21.8636346Z
Okay.. The difference between homophobia and religious convictions is someone with religious convictions isn't going to deny someone with need of emergency services where as someone who is homophobic would because they FEAR homosexuals. Hence the word phobia. See it's not that I fear a homosexual, I just disagree with their lifestyle and should be able to voice my opinion in this way. Just like a KKK member can be denied public services because of their beliefs. The same goes for a other hate groups, and groups like wise.
triangle.128k says2015-09-01T02:41:25.1668250Z
Why do you care about their lifestyle? Nobody asked you to be gay. Oh wait because "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
Teaparty1 says2015-09-01T10:13:19.8200763Z
Varrack what's the shock?
Huntress says2015-09-01T13:48:55.8946802Z
I would imagine voting yes was more from a far right, libertarian point of view than a social conservative one. A doctor could easily treat a patient multiple times without knowing they were homosexual. There obviously shouldn't be anything romantic or sexual in nature going on in a doctor's office, so I find it irrelevant to their fulfillment of the Hippocratic Oath.
Haroush says2015-09-01T14:08:45.2215219Z
Most libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Majority of time, instances like this would pertain to family doctors versus emergency services specialist like I have stated before. There is nothing by law which could prohibit a doctor from doing this if doctors are supposed to have liberty as well.
Preston says2015-09-01T15:14:05.3056343Z
@komodo, they lose their licence, are sued for malpractice, and are no longer able to practice.
Preston says2015-09-01T15:18:34.2877311Z
@Haroush free trade and religious convictions do not absolve one of the responsibilities they take on legally. Freedom of religion does not vindicate an oath in which you swear by your god to save any and all lives. And a free market is the furthest thing from what should be discussed. Homophobia has nothing to do with why doctors should/shouldnt save a life, religious conviction does not either. They as doctors signed a social contract with society to save any/all lives oath"I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. " Practicing doctors are here to save lives, religion and personal vindications aside.
Preston says2015-09-01T15:21:04.3323783Z
Also to address liberty, Doctors agreed to the oath, thus they agreed to give up liberties. What your advocating for is a system where contracts and oaths mean nothing because they restrict liberty. However, if they are signed into with knowledge of impact then they are to be upheld.
komododragon8 says2015-09-01T18:05:23.0831603Z
Preston: Perhaps currently but waht about later as more "religious freedom" bills are passed.
Preston says2015-09-01T18:54:51.0642622Z
It doesnt matter, its again, not about religious freedom, you signed a social contract with society to perform and act a certain way. You did so using your free will. You are thus subject to all punishment and expectations to that which you agreed too.
komododragon8 says2015-09-01T19:34:18.1298356Z
And what hapens when a bill passes which lets doctors ignore that contract if they dont agree with homosexuality.
Preston says2015-09-01T19:36:10.9653589Z
I dont think you get it, there is no law saying doctors have to help people, its an oath, you would need to tear down the Hippocratic oath that has existed for thousands of years. People can always sue anyone, and trying to predict that lawmakers would allow people to violate this would void the very purpose of doctors.
komododragon8 says2015-09-01T19:40:20.3492403Z
Preston: I have already said that a bill could protect these doctors from legal retaliation.
komododragon8 says2015-09-01T19:46:08.3005619Z
Preston: According to this source doctors can actually refuse service in certain situations. "Some physicians will not treat certain individuals or classes of patients. Perhaps the most common restriction is refusing to treat patients involved in accidents that will lead to litigation. Some physicians refuse to treat attorneys. Many obstetricians refuse to treat a pregnant woman who first seeks care after the sixth month of pregnancy. These decisions are shortsighted in a competitive market and ethically questionable in a market where they may make it difficult for the affected persons to obtain care; but they are not illegal." http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x220.htm
Preston says2015-09-01T20:01:45.0635928Z
As I have stated, its not against the law, it does however violate their oath and thus you can be sued for mal-practice, also, 22 states have instated regulation. Outside of these 22 states civil suits should and are executed. Its Medical negligence. Its important to realise that not everything is written as a federal law. Legally a senator could do crack on the way to sessions: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/26/privilege-from-arrest but civil suits will take place and they are still likely to be arrested.
komododragon8 says2015-09-01T20:15:33.3509023Z
Preston: And thats what this question is about, whether a bill should be introduced which protects these doctors from lawsuits.
Preston says2015-09-01T20:52:39.6879736Z
And im saying that violates several laws and doesnt have a presidents supporting it. It would allow for medical negligence, which is illigal, and harm the public, i dont think you will ever see anything when it comes to doctors.
Haroush says2015-09-01T21:43:33.7195506Z
Doctors having a choice to serve or not serve people is in no way doing harm to society. To say otherwise is ridiculous. It is nothing but politics coming from homosexuals' side of the spectrum.
Haroush says2015-09-02T00:21:54.1180502Z
@Preston, I wasn't talking about religious convictions when it comes to free trade..
komododragon8 says2015-09-02T01:13:13.6355158Z
Preston: This isnt about how it would be passed or what the likelyhood of it being passed. The question is should it be passed, simple as that.
Preston says2015-09-02T15:04:41.4637482Z
Should - used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. So the question is, is it moral to allow someone to die or suffer? No, simply put, no.
Preston says2015-09-02T15:05:39.6521212Z
@Haroush So an oath means nothing, the social contract agreed to doesnt mean anything? It is insignificant? We should allow people to violate social contracts?
Haroush says2015-09-02T15:25:08.8453017Z
People should have liberty in the work place customer and service provider alike.
Preston says2015-09-02T15:42:01.6073252Z
@Haroush you work for the public as soon as you agree to follow certain standards, they had liberty, they gave up liberty, and now they work as medical professionals. If we were debating wether a cars dealership could refrain from selling to gays i would be on the same page as you. But someones well being should not be risked because your god(s) doesn't support gay marriage. A contract is a contract is a contract.
komododragon8 says2015-09-02T19:36:02.7658670Z
Preston: your trying to change the nature of the question, it is about whether the state should protect those who refuse service from retaliation in the form of lawsuits.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-02T19:39:19.7951780Z
"Freedom of religion does not vindicate an oath in which you swear by your god to save any and all lives." it does in this country because you dont recognize a religion or its beliefs as law. Separation of church and state. These guys swore an oath to some mythical deities. They dont owe any allegiance to you for some bond they have with their respective spirits.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-02T19:43:47.0144296Z
"It would allow for medical negligence" No it would not. Like any other service you have done, if someone accepts you in for that service and then fails to perform it afterwards then they have broken a contractual agreement there. There is no negligence if your terms of service arent even accepted by the other party.
Preston says2015-09-02T19:45:05.3529451Z
Freedom are you retarded? You seem to troll alot, You are supporting a view point that would support the idea that social contracts are arbitrary and unnecissary. If someone claims god allows them to cease service then god certainly is involved, and since they swore by that god that they would help ALL, it is only right they do so. And yes they do have an obligation to me, and every other person who allows them to practice, That is how a social contract works, its how government works.
Preston says2015-09-02T19:47:32.7270898Z
""It would allow for medical negligence" No it would not. Like any other service you have done, if someone accepts you in for that service and then fails to perform it afterwards then they have broken a contractual agreement there. There is no negligence if your terms of service arent even accepted by the other party." This statement is so arbitrary its dumb, please google what medical negligence is and then tell me that letting someone die because you dont act isnt medical negligence. Your logic states that a parent who takes on the responsibility of a child isnt able to be negligible because they didnt say they would feed the baby. My gosh..
Preston says2015-09-02T19:49:33.7682657Z
Honestly, freedom's comments are the most ridiculous assertions. His reasoning for morality being objective was literally "It is and you cant provide me with evidence that disproves my assertion while assuming morality is objective" now he is saying social contracts are arbitrary, and negligence isnt a thing... Wow! Just wow
Preston says2015-09-02T19:51:39.3009392Z
@komododragon8 I have already said that if you are referring to something like a lawn care service, then im on the same page, you are changing the nature of the situation, a doctor is tied to his oath and obligations, thus we see that they are unique and should not be able to deny service, they gave up liberties of their own free will.
tajshar2k says2015-09-02T19:54:16.3813668Z
Freedom and how does a person's sexual orientation determine whether or not he is eligible to be treated? You do you know the role of a doctor right?
Preston says2015-09-02T19:57:25.5518172Z
Omg, im hung up on freedoms logic, a dying man who is unconscious cant get help because he cant agree to the terms a doctor sets forth... Wow! Just wow. It doesnt matter if he is in a hospital, the doctors arent negligent... Better yet what does he think commission is? Its part of negligence... Does he think commission is explicit action?
Preston says2015-09-02T20:00:29.4181316Z
Oops it auto corrected omission to commission
Heterodox says2015-09-02T21:40:09.9718752Z
Fairly certain that they have made some agreements with the hospital about who they can refuse service to and for what reasons upon accepting the position as an ER doctor. Not sure being gay is one of them, so it may be a breach of contract, but they still have that choice.
komododragon8 says2015-09-02T22:08:31.6317132Z
Preston: I agree that they should be, and if this wasnt my poll I would vote "no" (I generally dont vote on my own polls). But I will say this again, this poll is about whether or not a bill should be introduced to protect doctors from lawsuits who refuse to treat gay people based on religous convictions.
idoubtit says2015-09-02T23:15:33.1970923Z
There are plenty of doctors, just like there are plenty of wedding cake bakers. For every one that might not be accommodating , there will be a dozen more who are. It's too easy for anyone to simply move on to someone else, and that is what they should be required to do. Anyone who insists that the one person they've found who doesn't want to accommodate them, is the very one they want to force to do so, is saying much about themselves, and it's worse than the accusations hurled at their target. .
Preston says2015-09-03T06:11:08.9956995Z
@Heterodox, you are 100% wrong, hospitals cannot turn people away. @Komodo, once again, their should be no protection for the violation of a social contract @idoubtit They arent the same as cake makers, a doctor can remove physical pain and risk of death, things that we allow them to do when they swear to help all. They made the contract, they dont get to breach it.
Preston says2015-09-03T06:11:42.9360135Z
@Heterodox, you are 100% wrong, hospitals cannot turn people away. Komodo, once again, their should be no protection for the violation of a social contract idoubtit They arent the same as cake makers, a doctor can remove physical pain and risk of death, things that we allow them to do when they swear to help all. They made the contract, they dont get to breach it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T16:59:44.5297319Z
"If someone claims god allows them to cease service then god certainly is involved, and since they swore by that god that they would help ALL, it is only right they do so." So youre one of those sharia law types too then i take it? Even if you dont recognize the false gods they are entering into this oath with ... You think that there is some kind of binding legality done there?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:00:07.6027235Z
"If someone claims god allows them to cease service then god certainly is involved, and since they swore by that god that they would help ALL, it is only right they do so." So youre one of those sharia law types too then i take it? Even if you dont recognize the false gods they are entering into this oath with ... You think that there is some kind of binding legality done there?
tajshar2k says2015-09-03T17:00:37.3072510Z
You need to understand the role of government. A cop just can't walk of the job, because he doesn't want to help the black guy. Same with a doctor.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:03:11.7966463Z
"And yes they do have an obligation to me, and every other person who allows them to practice, That is how a social contract works, its how government works." Uh no, you don't 'allow' people to practice or do anything else about their day. They arent here by your good graces alone, you pretentious asshole.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:05:17.3914464Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality Nice scarecrow, im glad your fallacies are never ending. If the people ask for shrea law and its what the doctors choose to agree with, and inturn sign the social contract, then yes, they are obligated to do so. Thats how a social contract works, how about you google "social contracts for dummies" once you know what they are you can talk, as stated above, a cop signs on to protect all they can, they dont get to say "oh a gay, im not gonna protect them." because guess what, their social contract says they protect all. Your logic is so flawed
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:06:01.5913999Z
"A cop just can't walk of the job, because he doesn't want to help the black guy. Same with a doctor." Its not the same for the simple fact that they are under different employers. One being of the community paid for by tax payers and the other being often times self employed and paid by his patients.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:06:24.1495783Z
"A cop just can't walk of the job, because he doesn't want to help the black guy. Same with a doctor." Its not the same for the simple fact that they are under different employers. One being of the community paid for by tax payers and the other being often times self employed and paid by his patients.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:06:58.1740507Z
Put them on gov't payroll, then you have a case. Until then you have nothing.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:07:00.5705078Z
"Uh no, you don't 'allow' people to practice or do anything else about their day. They arent here by your good graces alone, you pretentious asshole." are you an idiot, do you know what a medical licence is? Its a sociatal contract that they will be allowed to practice medicine, and in return they dont abuse it, they violate their professionalism then they dont get to practice, so before you shove your foot down your throat goto google and look up what basic stuff you need to know b4 u talk.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:07:20.2330163Z
Put them on gov't payroll, then you have a case. Until then you have nothing.
tajshar2k says2015-09-03T17:07:29.8206953Z
But both sign an oath or document that says they will treat patients. Please refer to the Hippocratic oath. There isn't anywhere where it says a doctor can deny a gay service.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:08:02.5185049Z
"Put them on gov't payroll, then you have a case. Until then you have nothing." so i can run people over and not be negligent? I can refuse to feed my kids and not get in trouble? Im not on govt. Pay so i dont have to respect laws, or social contracts?? Yea exactly you dunce.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:10:34.1459883Z
And we dont revoke licenses based on denial of services. This is why you werent put in charge of issuing licenses.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:10:56.2205543Z
And we dont revoke licenses based on denial of services. This is why you werent put in charge of issuing licenses.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:12:18.9061484Z
"And we dont revoke licenses based on denial of services. This is why you werent put in charge of issuing licenses." absolutely we do! Do you knoww what happens if a doctor comes across a car crash that is fatal and chooses to leave without helping? Yea you get sued and lose your licence. You obviously dont understand basic law, spirit and letter are both equally important. Until you understand this, along with social contracts STFU and GTFO
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:14:07.1070487Z
The hippocratic oath isnt legally binding. Its a tradition. Its as legally binding as a boy scouts code to be truthful. Or brave.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:14:29.6652271Z
The hippocratic oath isnt legally binding. Its a tradition. Its as legally binding as a boy scouts code to be truthful. Or brave.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:14:51.1781787Z
@Freedom, if a doctor makes a conscious decision not to treat you, he is thus causing you harm, and rightly is able to be sued and is subject to loss of licence.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:15:12.2544596Z
"The hippocratic oath isnt legally binding. Its a tradition. Its as legally binding as a boy scouts code to be truthful. Or brave." OMG you dont get social contracts, if this oath means nothing, under what grounds can you sue a medical professional?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:19:37.9759323Z
"absolutely we do! Do you know what happens if a doctor comes across a car crash that is fatal and chooses to leave without helping? Yea you get sued and lose your licence." Case please.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:20:00.5341107Z
"absolutely we do! Do you know what happens if a doctor comes across a car crash that is fatal and chooses to leave without helping? Yea you get sued and lose your licence." Case please.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:20:03.1339242Z
Oh freedom, your from florida... Nvm, like 90% of people there are crazy psycho's ill let you think you can be racist/sexist/ and selective as someone who has sworn not to do so... There is no point in discussing this with you, you arent even showing why they should be able to deny service at this point, your just arguing that an obligation doesnt exist, which you do by spamming crap that disregards everything we have said.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:20:57.1414704Z
Case: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/01/california.octuplets.doctor.revoked/
Preston says2015-09-03T17:21:11.9147651Z
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/04/nyregion/doctor-loses-license-in-negligence-case.html
Preston says2015-09-03T17:21:30.4788841Z
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article25803157.html
Preston says2015-09-03T17:22:06.4215145Z
Keep in mind, most doctors recognize they are liable for negligibly and act rather then chose to be negligent.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:23:39.3201100Z
Now freedom, show me and explain why they should be able to ignore those in need.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:24:18.7207307Z
Im not seeing anywhere in any licensure requirements that say the applicant is agreeing to perform services pro bono or before they enter into an agreement to do them. Nowhere on their license does it state that as a requirement.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:24:41.2477083Z
Im not seeing anywhere in any licensure requirements that say the applicant is agreeing to perform services pro bono or before they enter into an agreement to do them. Nowhere on their license does it state that as a requirement.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:28:02.0560571Z
"OMG you dont get social contracts, if this oath means nothing, under what grounds can you sue a medical professional?" After you enter into a contract with him to perform services then you can sue if those services can be proven not to be up to par. You cannot sue before that. You cant sue someone before a crime was even committed.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:31:37.8251895Z
None of those cases apply. Maybe you should have read them first. Please people of this poll ... Go read all of prestons sources and note that all he is posting is gibberish (probably the first thing you had pop into google when you typed the word negligence). Not a one was revoked over not servicing a person. They were for faking credentials or performing sidework in questionable manners.
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T17:33:57.1367615Z
Preston: I agree but thats not what the question is about.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:36:57.2901807Z
They do it because they know they can bill you and get their money ... Via you or through the gov't (in the case of emergency rooms). If they knew ahead of time that you werent covered by insurance or were going to pay for your physical, or your endoscopy, or MRI or whatever ... They could easily refuse that service to you until you paid upfront even. They bill you later as a courtesy.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:37:19.8639595Z
They do it because they know they can bill you and get their money ... Via you or through the gov't (in the case of emergency rooms). If they knew ahead of time that you werent covered by insurance or were going to pay for your physical, or your endoscopy, or MRI or whatever ... They could easily refuse that service to you until you paid upfront even. They bill you later as a courtesy.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:40:53.2947380Z
Freedom.. That is 100% wrong - see:Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
Preston says2015-09-03T17:42:24.0249196Z
Komodo the Q' is Should doctors be able to refuse service to gay people. Should refers to a moral obligation, doctors have a moral obligation due to the social contract that hold them responsible for others.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:44:21.3711671Z
In the case of emergencies it is different! Because they are receiving gov't funds to pay for ER visits! Just like I said about the cops thing. You accept gov't money in there then you just bought an anti-discriminatory addendum along with it. Private medical practices can refuse all they want. They arent required to provide services if you dont pay.
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T17:44:30.6846059Z
Preston: I made this poll, and I made it to be about legal repercussions not morality.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:44:44.5533615Z
In the case of emergencies it is different! Because they are receiving gov't funds to pay for ER visits! Just like I said about the cops thing. You accept gov't money in there then you just bought an anti-discriminatory addendum along with it. Private medical practices can refuse all they want. They arent required to provide services if you dont pay.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:45:17.6696327Z
"you enter into a contract with him to perform services then you can sue if those services can be proven not to be up to par. You cannot sue before that. You cant sue someone before a crime was even committed." ok, good, now a doctor agrees to a social contract to help all, negligently choosing not to do so is a violation of contract
tajshar2k says2015-09-03T17:46:24.9263351Z
They arent required to provide services if you dont pay. Nobody is denying that, but you can't use being gay as an excuse. If you don't want to work, thats fine, you can't work for some, and not for others due to stupid reasons.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:47:54.7002393Z
Hey freedom, you idiot, look at what you voted, if emergency services are different why do you say they can deny them? Imbecil, also all the cases stem from medical negligence, and have resulted in loss of licence. "Im not seeing anywhere in any licensure requirements that say the applicant is agreeing to perform services pro bono or before they enter into an agreement to do them. Nowhere on their license does it state that as a requirement."The licence requires them to maintain professionalism, the oath is part of this. BTW laws require assistance. NOW PLEASE, explain why they have the right to violate social contracts and deny service.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:48:50.3688643Z
And honestly you guys screwed yourselves out of this stance back with the way obamacare was written. Because that money wont be directly fed to ERs anymore since everyone will be carrying insurance. And on top of that the gov't mandate requires them to carry it through third parties. Where there is no direct govt money being fed into something, there is no gov't control. The insurance company could try to pull some boycotting if their patients were refused service ... But other than that they really have no power to say someone has to accept their patients policies. That is another right doctors have. They can choose what circles they want to use for insurance ... They dont have to accept all policies from all carriers blindly.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:49:01.5934681Z
Komodo, legality is based around ethics/morality of a govt.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:50:38.7352908Z
"And honestly you guys screwed yourselves out of this stance back with the way obamacare was written. Because that money wont be directly fed to ERs anymore since everyone will be carrying insurance. And on top of that the gov't mandate requires them to carry it through third parties. Where there is no direct govt money being fed into something, there is no gov't control. The insurance company could try to pull some boycotting if their patients were refused service ... But other than that they really have no power to say someone has to accept their patients policies. That is another right doctors have. They can choose what circles they want to use for insurance ... They dont have to accept all policies from all carriers blindly." most of what you just posted has nothing to do with me... Also you realise COBRA states: medical screening examination (MSE) must be provided to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:53:00.3340735Z
"Hey freedom, you idiot, look at what you voted, if emergency services are different why do you say they can deny them? Imbecil, also all the cases stem from medical negligence, and have resulted in loss of licence. " Hey Preston, you faggot fuck, it doesnt say "emergency services" anywhere in the question. It says "services" as in general medical services. Yes they can deny them, and do all the time. Even for misbehavior. Theres old people who come in causing trouble in the office all the time demanding shit. They end up having to find a new doctor because we dont want to deal with them.
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T17:54:53.1873671Z
Preston: Legality is what the government writes into law. If the government wants to protect doctors who refuse service to gays it can.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:55:04.8876671Z
Im done with this. We'll keep denying services. You just stay mad about it. Deal.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:55:12.4382607Z
"Hey Preston, you faggot fuck, it doesnt say "emergency services" anywhere in the question. It says "services" as in general medical services. Yes they can deny them, and do all the time. Even for misbehavior. Theres old people who come in causing trouble in the office all the time demanding shit. They end up having to find a new doctor because we dont want to deal with them." Hey idiot, you voted ANY PROCEDURE, that includes emergency services, thats why there is a yes but not emergency services.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:55:27.3990443Z
Im done with this. We'll keep denying services. You just stay mad about it. Deal.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:56:39.7068983Z
And you voted all procedures too. Funny that.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:57:02.2338759Z
And you voted all procedures too. Funny that.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:57:27.3817207Z
GG then freedom, you keep on thinking your morals are correct. @Komodo, yes, but a country will not make a decision that does not support its sense of morality. Its why gays couldn't get married, and its why abortions have been legal, illigal, and legalized again.
Preston says2015-09-03T17:58:40.9376067Z
What... No i didnt, i voted "no" to "Should doctors be able to refuse service to gay people."
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T17:59:24.0259115Z
"Preston: Legality is what the government writes into law. If the government wants to protect doctors who refuse service to gays it can." It doesnt have to write it in expressly. Their protection is implied by the way its currently set up. Preston would have to be calling for a change to have his way. Right now he thinks it already supports his way, which is entirely false.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:01:01.3568071Z
Which implies that they cant on any/all procedures.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:01:21.7777307Z
Wow, so your saying its moral to deny emergency procedures to gays? Nice, because society obviously thinks gays should die... Its not in support of my opinion that all life is sacred at all.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:01:23.4157727Z
Which implies that they cant on any/all procedures.
tajshar2k says2015-09-03T18:01:44.6479171Z
Those old people were denied because they were causing trouble, not because they were old. There isn't any good reason to deny somebody medical attention because of their sexualiity.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:02:00.8340632Z
It implies they cannot deny service
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T18:02:03.7584071Z
Preston: So if the government decides that a doctor refusing to treat a gay person is moral than they can make a law which will protect them.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:04:16.0029979Z
Preston: So if the government decides that a doctor refusing to treat a gay person is moral than they can make a law which will protect them. -- no a govt decides the value of life, and then if they feel it is unimportant they devalue it through law, or executive action. EX: Executive order 44, its also why gay marrage was unbanned, realise they restrict or remove restrictions
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T18:09:24.7817151Z
Preston: The government doesn't decide the value of life, they determine just laws. So long as the majority of the congressman and the president (along with the house) agree, and so long as the supreme court doesnt strike it down the government can pass that law.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:09:39.7268983Z
Theres nothing moral about it. If it was ok for the gov't to be pushing morals, we would have left up laws against all those civil rights that allowed for gay to even be part of this conversation in the first place. This is about personal freedom, yet again. This person (doctor) who is not in the employ of the government can decide to do whatever he wants with his business model. If he wants to target a particular group with his services then so be it. Plastic surgeons wont even perform services on someone if its something completely ridiculous. That person would become a walking billboard for his practice. If he wanted to deny service, again, it would be up to him. If he wants to deny sex changes at his office, cant sue him ... Cant take his license away ... Nothing. He could deny it for any reason he wanted, even to say "it would just look funny" to him.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:12:08.0367555Z
"Preston: The government doesn't decide the value of life, they determine just laws. So long as the majority of the congressman and the president (along with the house) agree, and so long as the supreme court doesnt strike it down the government can pass that law." what drives them? Do they just write random things?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:14:09.9570271Z
"There isn't any good reason to deny somebody medical attention because of their sexualiity." 1) how could you ever prove that it was because of a persons sexuality in court without a confession. 2) not performing a certain service that those people are inclined to recieve is basically the same thing, they can do that. They can be selective in what services they provide. They are not required to know and perform all surgeries all the time. Specialist can pick and choose what they do, and in effect choose who they are doing them on by demographic.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:14:34.3500934Z
Theres nothing moral about it. If it was ok for the gov't to be pushing morals, we would have left up laws against all those civil rights that allowed for gay to even be part of this conversation in the first place. This is about personal freedom, yet again. This person (doctor) who is not in the employ of the government can decide to do whatever he wants with his business model. If he wants to target a particular group with his services then so be it. Plastic surgeons wont even perform services on someone if its something completely ridiculous. That person would become a walking billboard for his practice. If he wanted to deny service, again, it would be up to him. If he wants to deny sex changes at his office, cant sue him ... Cant take his license away ... Nothing. He could deny it for any reason he wanted, even to say "it would just look funny" to him. -- -- Right, so if a surgeon decides, "Im not saving this gay guy" thats moral? And justified? Even though he swore to help all? The govt doesn't push morals, unless you want objective morals, instead they make sure people have the freedom to persue legal action against those who break societal contracts
Preston says2015-09-03T18:16:33.3476562Z
"1) how could you ever prove that it was because of a persons sexuality in court without a confession. 2) not performing a certain service that those people are inclined to recieve is basically the same thing, they can do that. They can be selective in what services they provide. They are not required to know and perform all surgeries all the time. Specialist can pick and choose what they do, and in effect choose who they are doing them on by demographic." we know because some people are idiots and say it explicitly. And 2 this isnt a Q, its an opinion. A specialist however is obligated to help all that they can, and thus they must do so. They signed onto that, not me, not you. Violation to do so is a violation with us as well as every body us.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:18:32.7925663Z
Right yes ... So you can persue it in court and fail miserably. Im sure someone out there has thought of that angle before you did. There are people out there that do nothing but file lawsuits to make a living.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:18:54.8359315Z
Right yes ... So you can persue it in court and fail miserably. Im sure someone out there has thought of that angle before you did. There are people out there that do nothing but file lawsuits to make a living.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:20:37.1772192Z
And im sure like most, you will succeed, there are also those who lose loved ones due to malpractice, negligence, and should have the right to compensation.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:28:04.2196179Z
Well I can personally attest to the fact that no doctor has professed such an agreement towards me. Maybe to his medicine gods. But what type of person is it who sues another over a favor they offered? Who holds someone to that, as if they owned that service already. The Prestons of the world ... Thats who. It sounds like they have offered the favor of their services so openly that people have become to take it for granted and expect it now. Ungrateful. You should really be so lucky that anyone out there even finds enough reason to want to keep you alive in the ER in the first place. And instead ... When one person comes along that doesnt like you and doesnt offer you the world youre going to sue them over it. You should really get a life, your own life, and leave other people alone.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:28:26.8089971Z
Well I can personally attest to the fact that no doctor has professed such an agreement towards me. Maybe to his medicine gods. But what type of person is it who sues another over a favor they offered? Who holds someone to that, as if they owned that service already. The Prestons of the world ... Thats who. It sounds like they have offered the favor of their services so openly that people have become to take it for granted and expect it now. Ungrateful. You should really be so lucky that anyone out there even finds enough reason to want to keep you alive in the ER in the first place. And instead ... When one person comes along that doesnt like you and doesnt offer you the world youre going to sue them over it. You should really get a life, your own life, and leave other people alone.
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T18:29:20.6853750Z
Preston: Yes and im sure there are plenty in congress who would be willing to introduce such a bill.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:33:20.7445711Z
Oh im sure you would like that, especially if i was a doctor, they you would want me to leave gays alone. Its also not a favor, its a service, money exchanges hands in the long run. It may be a favor if the doc PREFORMS THE PROCEDURE. And if my brother dies because your a doctor and you watch him die without trying to help, or if you miss-perform a procedure im paying you to do, then yes, i will sue you, because you killed my brother. Oh and btw, settlement rates are upwards of 80% so expect your lawyer to advise you to pay me. How about you treat a human like a human. Respect others, and relize you arent more important then anyone. Then we will be ok. Why havent you left yet. You said you were done.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:34:06.5100799Z
No komodo, why are laws like that made? What drives them to do so?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:36:34.9947695Z
"And im sure like most, you will succeed, there are also those who lose loved ones due to malpractice, negligence, and should have the right to compensation." And youre doing all those lost ones a disservice by calling refusal of service the same thing as malpractice. People might start taking malpractice as a joke at this rate, since refusal of service as a right is such an obvious conclusion to come to about literally any service out there.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:38:30.1520972Z
"And youre doing all those lost ones a disservice by calling refusal of service the same thing as malpractice. People might start taking malpractice as a joke at this rate, since refusal of service as a right is such an obvious conclusion to come to about literally any service out there." Both are violations of professionalism, and the oath they have taken, they both are violations of the social contract they agreed to. Whether its watching someone die and choosing not to help, or Choosing to help and doing something incorrectly, it still results in death. Thus the actions are on similar levels.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:39:28.4031343Z
The oath is a favor, the service is a service. Are you paying to have them on retainer?? No you arent. No money exchanges hands with this open social contract oath you keep clinching to. For a service ... Yes money is exchanged. Thats when you get to sue. Not before. Quit jumping the gun.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:41:08.7427138Z
An oath is an oath, its a promise, its a contract, used to guide service. Ignoring someone and letting them die is negligence: A health care provider charged with criminal medical negligence does not necessarily cause intentional harm. Instead, a negligent state of mind involves a situation in which the provider "should have been aware" of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" but was not. James A. Filkins, Criminalization of Medical Negligence 507, 508, Legal Medicine 7th ed. (S. Sandy Sanbar ed., 2007) it doesnt require action, it requires inaction.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:43:07.2583981Z
"Whether its watching someone die and choosing not to help, or Choosing to help and doing something incorrectly, it still results in death. Thus the actions are on similar levels." Similar but not the same. Choosing to help then doing something incorrectly involved "choosing to help". Choosing to enter into a contractual agreement. The absence of that choice does not constitute a broken agreement. It never existed before that commitment was made. You cant blame every other doctor in the building for your husbands death, they didnt engage him.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:43:29.2986547Z
"Whether its watching someone die and choosing not to help, or Choosing to help and doing something incorrectly, it still results in death. Thus the actions are on similar levels." Similar but not the same. Choosing to help then doing something incorrectly involved "choosing to help". Choosing to enter into a contractual agreement. The absence of that choice does not constitute a broken agreement. It never existed before that commitment was made. You cant blame every other doctor in the building for your husbands death, they didnt engage him.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:46:43.7860615Z
Ok freedom i see where you are misunderstanding how things work, your not recognizing the societal contract made when a doctor begins practicing medicine. Remember that he did agree to a contract and so did the person he is saving, the man agreed to follow laws and pay taxs, in return society offers him benefits, such as assistants from doctors when in emergencies, it does so because doctors agreed with society to help those in need.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:48:47.2745781Z
They could have been fully capable of helping too. Been on a different floor strolling around while your husband is coding out on the floor below. You have to face it too, that not every doctor is built with the same level of talent. You might hold them to the highest standard imaginable but you cant blame them for not being the very best one out there. You cant force them to have that guardian angel level of morality either. You can only call upon them to do what is expected of any normal doctor performing the procedure. If they dont think they can perform something up to par they can refuse and pass the buck on to someone else more capable. Same goes for your moral driven stuff.
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T18:51:07.6461529Z
Preston: The opinions of the people in charge, yes morality does heavily factor into their decisions, but morality is ultimately subjective and some (freedombeforeequality for example) may consider forcing a doctor to treat someone they don't want more immoral than letting someone die.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:51:44.4080361Z
And thats another point too. There might be something uncontrollable in them that would cause them to not perform 100% if working on something morally wrong. There is always that above and beyond they could go for something if they feel the need to ... Do you think they do that for a repeat drug overdoser? No. They perform dead average and let nature take its course.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:52:23.9150418Z
You are right, if there is someone who can do better, and that person is there ready to help, they should let the better do so. But if an inexperienced doctor comes across a man choking in an ally, and that man is black, he cannot say "oh your black, im not helping you" instead he should help, and if he doesnt, and like an idiot, tells everyone he doesnt help black people. Then he is criminally negligent. If he tried and failed in public, he is legally safe, good Samaritan laws.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:54:04.8320887Z
Freedom there are laws to protect doctors if they help in an emergency and fail, but legally they are obligated to help, and socially they are obligated as well. Its the responsibility they took on, they can of course break it, but it will and should result in civil action.
Preston says2015-09-03T18:55:53.7987872Z
@komododragon8 so should we stop talking about a factor that is heavily involved (if not the main factor behind laws)?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T18:57:12.5233644Z
"the man agreed to follow laws and pay taxs, in return society offers him benefits, such as assistants from doctors when in emergencies" The gov't can only offer benefits as far as they have influence. They only pay into ER room visits. The other money they give hospitals is in the way of grants that have very few strings attached to it. Refusal of service is not one of those strings, except in the instance of ERs.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T19:00:07.6364623Z
"Freedom there are laws to protect doctors if they help in an emergency and fail" This sentence alludes to the fact that there is a stark difference between before the person tries to help and after they try to help. This is exactly what im talking about. Contract exists after you try, not before.
Preston says2015-09-03T19:00:08.5328201Z
Freedom, i didnt say govt. I said society, its a social contract, they owe it to the people. And the people owe it to them, we pay tax's so the govt protects society.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T19:00:30.6469048Z
"Freedom there are laws to protect doctors if they help in an emergency and fail" This sentence alludes to the fact that there is a stark difference between before the person tries to help and after they try to help. This is exactly what im talking about. Contract exists after you try, not before.
Preston says2015-09-03T19:02:29.0429208Z
The contract obligates them to act, failure to act is not protected, and is medical negligence. When acting it is protected. There is nothing more to this. The contract came into existence upon taking the oath.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T19:04:45.6970565Z
"Freedom, i didnt say govt. I said society, its a social contract, they owe it to the people. And the people owe it to them, we pay tax's so the govt protects society." Thats a dangerous platform to stand on anyways considering close to half dont pay taxes at all. I wouldnt try to hold onto that as your proof of a secured social contract if i were you.
Preston says2015-09-03T19:06:01.7814845Z
Its not weak at all, those who dont pay taxes are violating their contract, they are thus subject to legal action. But it doesnt nullify their contract, it strains it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T19:13:56.5627809Z
Strains it?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T19:14:19.0741581Z
Strains it?
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T19:28:20.9185433Z
Preston: What argument are you trying to make because I think we might not be on the same page.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-03T19:29:38.2653265Z
Non-payment pretty much nullifies any agreement. If that was your only contribution to its terms and you dont follow through, its toast. I dont know what else you have in your pocket that bought you a doctor on retainer. What else you got?
Preston says2015-09-03T19:36:29.3331995Z
Freedom: thats why people who avaid tax's are put in prison, fined, and lose rights.@Komodo, im arguing that legality is based on ethics, and because it is unethical to deny service, it shouldnt be encouraged.
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T19:40:11.5410239Z
Preston: I agree that legality is greatly based in ethics and the denying service should not be encouraged, however because different people have different sences of morality, polititians can establish laws which they believe are moral.
Preston says2015-09-03T19:41:13.9726241Z
Right... Thats why i voted the way i did... Im confuzed as to what what your point is...
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T19:42:46.6528182Z
Preston: I was under the impression that you were argueing that a bill protecting doctors who deny service would be completely impossible to introduce.
Preston says2015-09-03T19:44:18.1318046Z
No, im saying its morally incomprehensible and thus they should not be able to discriminate.
komododragon8 says2015-09-03T20:30:00.1321925Z
Preston: ah ok than I guess we're in agreement.
Heterodox says2015-09-03T23:04:35.1004061Z
"No, im saying its morally incomprehensible and thus they should not be able to discriminate." Disagree with this statement almost entirely. There is no moral reason why they cannot refuse. Denying them the ability to refuse is tantamount to slavery. I thought slavery was considered morally wrong? Only reason I could see them as not being able to refuse, is if they had already made a contract to do otherwise. In which case they could still refuse but then they would face the consequences of said breach, probably including no longer being a doctor. (Btw why not take this discussion somewhere else where you can actually format your giant blocks of text?)
Preston says2015-09-04T04:18:08.1198761Z
@Heterodox lemme put this as dumb and strait foreward as i can for you, A doctor agrees to a social contract of their own free choice. Thus side effects are things they agreed too. Slavery was forced, no one agreed to serve as slaves, they were forced to. If you dont think doctors should need to sign a social contract then public welfare should not exist, because no doctor needs to give care to society based on govt.
Heterodox says2015-09-04T04:37:20.3068980Z
@Preston, What social contract? I've already said that if there was a contract and they choose to breach they will face the consequences. I do not believe there is such a contract that says they have to provide their service to anyone or everyone. One of the exceptions is most likely an ER doctor. Upon taking that position they will have likely agreed to a contract. There is no social contract though. A doctor's services are his labor, his labor (property). To say they aren't his, is to make him a slave.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T14:31:49.2474557Z
See Heterodox gets it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T14:32:13.3344733Z
See Heterodox gets it.
Preston says2015-09-04T14:41:57.6162545Z
Im absolutely baffled at this utter lack of understanding of social contracts, the Hippocratic Oath, that doctors swear to uphold, Clearly forms a social contract, along with the fact they have to register as a practician, not just as a business. As soon as they began forming contractual obligations with society, they used their freedom to make the decisions to give up certain freedoms for the betterment of society. TO suggest that a doctor is even close to a slave is offensive, and clearly indicates that you not only do not understand the difference between slavery and employment. A doctor can walk away from his trade and a slave cannot, a slave does not sign up to be a slave, a doctor signs up to be a doctor. What you are suggesting is that a business owner should be able to abuse his employees because he has the liberty to do so. The govt and society should not hold a living standard because it enslaves business owners. Even though the employer agrees to certain terms upon registering as a business. The society you support is one where anarchy exists, pure anarchy, because guess what. Society cannot uphold modern conventions without the social contracts set in place.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T14:46:59.9364061Z
Im baffled that you, a known religion basher, keep trying to press the validity of an oath to some roman/greek gods.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T14:47:23.0561989Z
Im baffled that you, a known religion basher, keep trying to press the validity of an oath to some roman/greek gods.
Preston says2015-09-04T14:55:14.5938893Z
HAHAHAHA, a religion basher! Name 1 place ive been bashing religion? LOL, dude im a dedicated mormon, if anything i push freedom of practice. Omg, i cant believe this is your only refutation to me!
Preston says2015-09-04T14:56:22.7208361Z
You have resorted to attacking my foundation rather then my arguement. Another well lost arguement on your part freedom
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T15:17:06.4315253Z
This oath is just tradition. Like walking the stage at your graduation ... It doesnt invalidate your degree if you dont walk. You still have the document in hand ... The licenses in hand. That oath is not an official part of the process in any capacity. Its a traditional thing.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T15:18:07.4758905Z
Separation of church from state and claiming the state and its people have a higher authority than god is religion bashing.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T15:18:29.9248661Z
Separation of church from state and claiming the state and its people have a higher authority than god is religion bashing.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T15:19:35.0253353Z
You put your mormon god second ... Ive seen that in your posts. That isnt news to anyone.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T15:19:57.5835137Z
You put your mormon god second ... Ive seen that in your posts. That isnt news to anyone.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T15:21:56.5209633Z
The fact that youre even here in this post now advocating that the legal system and other people have precedence over some human being and the services they provide is clear proof of that. It doesnt matter how many tiers of middlemen you use to enslave these guys ... Youre still to blame.
Preston says2015-09-04T15:25:38.4812366Z
"Separation of church from state and claiming the state and its people have a higher authority than god is religion bashing." First... I disagree. I dont do this at all, I say "God is #1, but my god may not be your god, thus our country should allow for all to practice as they with, this is what my god supports, this is what I support" You are incorrect in asserting i somehow disregard my god, especially since i just turned in papers to go on my 2 year mission, in which im dedicating 2 years of my life where i will spend every waking moment serving my god. You mind liking a post i made talking about how my god is #2?? ALSO: "This oath is just tradition. Like walking the stage at your graduation ... It doesn't invalidate your degree if you don't walk. You still have the document in hand ... The licenses in hand. That oath is not an official part of the process in any capacity. Its a traditional thing." Yea no, when a doctor gets his degree and graduates it is like a HS Graduation... It doesn't surprise me that you don't know that. "The fact that you're even here in this post now advocating that the legal system and other people have precedence over some human being and the services they provide is clear proof of that. It doesn't matter how many tiers of middlemen you use to enslave these guys ... You're still to blame." this is only true if morality is objective, i dont hold your opinion, i dont hold your beliefs. I dont comply nor degrade myself to your standards, and thus it is only natural for you, a supporter of objective morality, to oppose anyone who holds a different opinion proving you wrong. So to conclude: Please post a link to me trashing my god: dont make an assertion, just link it.
Preston says2015-09-04T15:40:01.9187933Z
Its also not enslaving, they agreed to the social contract.
Heterodox says2015-09-04T15:53:29.6263490Z
@Preston, I didn't say being a doctor made a person a slave. I said taking ownership of the doctor's labor would be making him a slave. Not all doctor's have to take the Hippocratic Oath, because not all medical schools require it. Also, if you are so easily offended about things I never said, stop saying I said them.
Preston says2015-09-04T16:11:24.0520363Z
@Freedom, questioning you seemed to shut you up. You still looking for that link?-- "@Preston, I didn't say being a doctor made a person a slave. I said taking ownership of the doctor's labor would be making him a slave. Not all doctor's have to take the Hippocratic Oath, because not all medical schools require it. Also, if you are so easily offended about things I never said, stop saying I said them." you compared them, it shouldn't be done. Not all doctors take the exact oath i posted, but all take a form of it. Regardless, they also are licensed by society to practice.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T16:47:55.5732433Z
" but my god may not be your god" I dont worship athena, panacea, apollo, etc. etc. Our govenment shouldnt be recognizing pacts made with them as law either. Your god is not my god.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T16:48:18.2406245Z
" but my god may not be your god" I dont worship athena, panacea, apollo, etc. etc. Our govenment shouldnt be recognizing pacts made with them as law either. Your god is not my god.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T16:53:45.3654121Z
"You are incorrect in asserting i somehow disregard my god, especially since i just turned in papers to go on my 2 year mission, in which im dedicating 2 years of my life where i will spend every waking moment serving my god." Youre going to spend half that time trying to figure out how to make recompense for everything you just claimed in this poll. Since you thoroughly sullied your gods name by spreading the idea to everyone here that he is not the authority on things ... That some council of man is and that said council recognizing pacts with heathen gods as law is ok in your book. You should go have a talk with him about all that. See what he thinks about the message youve been spreading. Hopefully you represent him better in your mission than you did here.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T16:54:07.4243777Z
"You are incorrect in asserting i somehow disregard my god, especially since i just turned in papers to go on my 2 year mission, in which im dedicating 2 years of my life where i will spend every waking moment serving my god." Youre going to spend half that time trying to figure out how to make recompense for everything you just claimed in this poll. Since you thoroughly sullied your gods name by spreading the idea to everyone here that he is not the authority on things ... That some council of man is and that said council recognizing pacts with heathen gods as law is ok in your book. You should go have a talk with him about all that. See what he thinks about the message youve been spreading. Hopefully you represent him better in your mission than you did here.
Preston says2015-09-04T16:54:14.8501681Z
The govt isnt, society is. Because if someone swears on your gods name, you want them to uphold it.
Preston says2015-09-04T16:57:43.7863253Z
Once again, you assert i mean something when i clearly haven't and do not say or support it. I Suport my god, but my god has this magical thing called "Respect" I respect others beliefs, and believe they can study what they want. Your ad hominem is silly tho, it tells me that your god allows discrimination, hate, and death, also attacking others. I do find it silly because if you honestly believed in any god you wouldnt be speaking as you do now, you would be showing the love the christian god does.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T17:01:09.4931997Z
It is enslaving if your assuming a social contract that doesnt exist. Youre creating this scenario where they as people owe something to you inherently based on their state of being. They just happen to have a set of skills you want to take advantage of, so youre going to sit there and make up some social structure where this type of person is predetermined to be your healthcare slaves. Youre truly taking advantage of their good nature.
Preston says2015-09-04T17:08:07.4964461Z
"It is enslaving if your assuming a social contract that doesnt exist. Youre creating this scenario where they as people owe something to you inherently based on their state of being. They just happen to have a set of skills you want to take advantage of, so youre going to sit there and make up some social structure where this type of person is predetermined to be your healthcare slaves. Youre truly taking advantage of their good nature." Once again, they are far from slave, and secoundly, Telling someone that its morally wrong to turn someone away based on their beliefs, race, or religion. You are supporting the degration of life, degrade and enslave anyone different from you. You have already said you believe everyone's morals will eventually become yours. You are the one enslaving people based on beliefs, im saying those who agree to a real social contract (If its not real then why do Doctors get in trouble for moral professionalism?) should not be allowed to break them, in the same way that tax evasion is illigal.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T17:18:27.6206159Z
"(If its not real then why do Doctors get in trouble for moral professionalism?)" Name proper instances and ill tell you exactly why it was illegal. To name a few: You might call disclosing information about a patient outside of the office a mark against professionalism ... Really that is a breach of the persons privacy. Its not because the doctor was being unprofessional. You might call being inebriated on the job unprofessional ... You dont bring someone to court for unprofessionalism ... You have to try them for an actual violation, like negligence on duty, youd have to prove that they were endangering someone because of the state they put themselves in. Docs dont get fired for getting plastered on the weekend. They have to actually violate something. No contract exists outside their workplace, and thats what youre trying to nail them for. You might call it unprofessional to issue drugs outside the office or to diagnose using non standard methods ... Those endanger the people. No case is built solely on the fact that he is unprofessional. There has to be a victim. With your hippocratic oath thing youre trying to make everyone a victim all the time whenever this guy does anything out of the ordinary, even in his off hours. Thats slavery if youre going to make legal cases against him anytime he isnt doing what you want him to. You can enslave with money and fines. It doesnt have to be whips and chains.
Preston says2015-09-04T17:26:57.5113028Z
You are still an idiot, literally the first thing that should have popped into your head is Dr Death, or do you not remember this case? Where a doctor helped with euthinasia, Morally wrong, so he is punished. Remember law is formed based off of morals. So everything a doctor does that is concidered immoral can get him punished. And you still compare them to slave? Freaking white privilege over here, thinks a restrictions on doctors = forced labor. Lol i literally am thrown by this. Restrictions on a market that prevent destruction of a proprietor are good not bad. If a consumer cant make an informed choice because we dont regulate what information they release is a harm to capitalism. A parent in your world can starve their children because its slavery to restrict their right to starve their children. In your world there is polygamy, drugs, war, murder, rape, pedophillia, but heres the thing... ITS ALL LEGAL IN YOUR WORLD. Because restricting these abilities is slavery in your mind. Oh my gosh you should never be incharge of anything. You still have yet to explain why they are morally able to deny care. EXPLAIN, or dont post, this gets so old, you dont have any support so you trash others.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T18:09:31.1384949Z
So you want to turn it into a moral argument now? Not a legal one? I can go there too.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T18:09:54.2114865Z
So you want to turn it into a moral argument now? Not a legal one? I can go there too.
Preston says2015-09-04T18:11:06.2819050Z
Oh my gosh your an idiot, Morality and Legality are tied directly. I explained this above. So is or is it not, moral to deny someone care, based on race, sexuality, or religion?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T18:19:11.8009833Z
Dr. Kevorkian was tried on the grounds that he convinced these people to take this route towards death, where they could have been helped by alternative medicine/doctors. He entered into a contract to help these people and then provided them with sub-par care leading to their demise. His defense was that they wanted to die, assisted suicide, which is a whole different argument entirely. Because if those people truly did want to die ... And he had an accurate account of that from that person ... He should have been found innocent in the matter.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T18:19:37.4480409Z
Dr. Kevorkian was tried on the grounds that he convinced these people to take this route towards death, where they could have been helped by alternative medicine/doctors. He entered into a contract to help these people and then provided them with sub-par care leading to their demise. His defense was that they wanted to die, assisted suicide, which is a whole different argument entirely. Because if those people truly did want to die ... And he had an accurate account of that from that person ... He should have been found innocent in the matter.
Preston says2015-09-04T18:24:54.7289761Z
That does not answer my question.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T18:35:01.1633253Z
What has attempted to be explained here, is the concept of freedom. You have the right to your religious beliefs and to not be persecuted for them. Your home, your business, your property, these are all yours (debatable these days, given the degree of assault on these freedoms). So while a doctor refusing to treat a gay patient might not be "nice" in some people's opinion, it's still his right to refuse, because he's not OWNED by anyone, nor should he be. Regular medical visits can just as easily be done with a doctor who is willing, and emergency situations in an ER have multiple doctors and someone willing. So there really is no legitimate excuse for trying to force any one doctor to practice his own business against his own will.
NotThatClever says2015-09-04T18:43:24.0795267Z
While the doctor may not be forced to provide labor against their will, we also retain the right to revoke their State license if they refuse to treat a class of people.
Heterodox says2015-09-04T18:47:35.5687388Z
@Preston Morality may be a factor for the creation of laws, but until there is actually a law that restricts a particular action it's perfectly legal to carry out that action even if immoral. Also, it doesn't matter if it is moral for a doctor to refuse service to a gay person, that wasn't the polls question. The question was whether or not they should be able to refuse service. To me that's a question of legality and/or the doctor's rights. Also, I never compared being a doctor to being a slave (putting words in my mouth again). I did talk about a doctor (could be any person with any profession) owning their labor and for someone else to take ownership of that labor is tantamount to slavery. Yes, it can be argued that slavery does still exist in most countries under that definition and I would agree.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T18:51:49.5575809Z
I would have to say yes, it is morally right, because in doing so you are allowing for one to discriminate care giving to those most likely to benefit society from it. You are doing a disservice to everyone else if you have to give sub par care to people who contribute positively to society because you had to exhaust resources on someone who doesnt or, even, you were held legally obligated to give equal care to both. This is in effect holding people down. It is morally right to discriminate in what services you provide to other people. You do it every day in who you talk to, the attitude you present towards people in your favor, the places you decide to shop at and spend money. All of it. Now whether or not certain groups youve mentioned here are being discriminated on wrongfully or rightly is debatable, but the act of discriminating itself is most certainly ok.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T18:51:50.2595989Z
@NotThatClever. So because some people think the doc isn't nice, the gov't should deprive him of his livelihood, not because he's done harm, but because some people are vindictive?
Heterodox says2015-09-04T18:52:34.4711325Z
@idoubtit Thank you. Said it better than I have.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T18:58:35.5579909Z
In fact being allowed to make that decision on your own is paramount. Having the people youre discriminating against be able to force behaviors from you is more damaging as it does not allow people to properly represent themselves or represent moral values. Instead it covers them up in falsehoods. There is no integrity in that. Forcing people to behave a certain way does not make them genuinely moral.
Preston says2015-09-04T18:59:41.3604781Z
Well this is a waste of time, Freedom, your moral sense is your own. I cant convince you that discrimination is bad, it should have been done by your parents. We will have to agree to disagree, because i dont think its moral. @doubtit&hex, yes, taking away someones right to practice when they violate a social contract is in obligatory.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T19:06:19.5762885Z
So youre saying its only something that can be taught to the young and impressionable at an early age. They must be the only ones who could believe such a thing? And it has to come from someone you trust (like parents). Its not a position that stands on its own? Not a conclusion someone would come to naturally? That explains it pretty clearly to me at least.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T19:12:19.0563057Z
And youre being discriminatory right now even, by saying this isnt worth your time. That you could have better success applying your services elsewhere, instead of on people you deem arent going to do things your way when all is said and done. I guess you know how a doctor must feel when he deems a person a waste of their time? If only your decision was to have to stay here and argue with me eternally or face legal recourse. Then maybe it'd be the completely the same.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T19:14:44.8732445Z
There is only ONE valid reason to take away a doctor's medical license, and that is if he is incompetent and puts people's lives at risk. His unwillingness to treat someone based on his own religious convictions is not a valid reason to take his license. Anyone wanting to do so based on that, is wanting to PUNISH him because they don't like his beliefs, and that is religious persecution. Wrap it up any way you like, but when the ribbon comes off, it is persecution, petty, spiteful, vindictive.
Preston says2015-09-04T19:17:29.1454565Z
Lol, 1st not discriminatory, its discretion, im choosing let an old man continue to be Racist, and overall discriminatory based on sexual preference. Like i said, not worth my time. @Idoubtit, they signed the contract, they agreed to help society, it was their decision. Lawyers can be assigned to be defense attorneys by the public courts, forced even, but they arent calling the public spiteful or claiming that they are slaves.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T19:23:10.2170017Z
OK, Preston, so the doc who doesn't want to treat gays is a racist, because all gays are.....? Asian? African? Mexican? Glad we got that cleared up.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T19:24:58.4057757Z
Good example ... But not all attorneys are automatically on that list. They dont all collectively owe allegiance to you when you need legal help. If youre guilty, or they think youre guilty ... Think you look guilty ... Or you dont pay them ... Anything ... They can refuse to serve you. They dont have to defend someone in a civil case over gayness if they dont want to or it is against their morals/religion. They can do whatever they wish until that contract is signed saying they will take your case.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T19:27:26.6251761Z
If you talk funny and they think that might add to their odds of losing were you to get put on the stand they could deny service to you for that. They could deny simply because they dont want to ruin a good win/loss track record. Your special circumstances are none of their concern unless they want to make it their concern.
Preston says2015-09-04T19:29:58.5098396Z
Hey doubt it, learn to read, My post definately contains the words "Sexual Preference" but you know... English
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T19:29:59.2906905Z
And 'discrimination' is just 'discretion' based on perceived merit. And youre perceiving an awful lot.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T19:30:22.3636821Z
And 'discrimination' is just 'discretion' based on perceived merit. And youre perceiving an awful lot.
Preston says2015-09-04T19:31:29.7392244Z
Ty freedom, your right not all attorneys are on it, but all defence attorneys are, i dont expect someone who is a pediatrician to do heart surgery. But i dont expect the heart surgeon to turn a homosexual down.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T19:34:25.3867133Z
Her's another thing to consider. Some doctors practice in areas where the vast majority of people are very religious, very conservative. A doctor in an area like that can lose his practice via lack of business, it's it known he treats gays. You can call it homophobic or whatever you like, hate it all you like. Doesn't change the fact that some people will be that way, and doesn't affect their right to be that way. A doctor in this situation needs to think about all of his patients, not one would-be patient.
Preston says2015-09-04T19:48:06.7104152Z
I love your response to me telling you to read. Why do i even bother, oh and fyi, if all doctors are expected to treat all people, then buisness doesnt change. Like. At. All. Simply supply and demand.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T19:49:14.7811177Z
Yes, yes he does, like wasting time and resources on a sex change procedure or an artificial insemination for a gay couple when the time/resources could be better spent keeping someone alive.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T19:49:36.8400833Z
Yes, yes he does, like wasting time and resources on a sex change procedure or an artificial insemination for a gay couple when the time/resources could be better spent keeping someone alive.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T20:05:32.3383179Z
Preston, Other people on this planet are not obligated to live their lives per how you think they should. It's called freedom. Something they don't teach at Socialist Academy.
tajshar2k says2015-09-04T20:07:52.3960157Z
Oh good lord, don't you people realize a doctor cannot refuse to treat a certain patient because of his sexuality?? Its his frickin job to treat everybody. Only if he completely closes his practice is he allowed to deny patients. Half of these hypocrities who say they should have the freedom to choice, will keep their mouth shut when it comes to Abortion. Typical Conservatives.
Preston says2015-09-04T20:08:36.8237129Z
Wow, you really dont understand nor read anything ive said, tell you what, look over this profile, READ IT, then tell me what i am. Its quite silly you dont understand that capitalism is based on social contracts, freedom still must abide socal law, but you know. Im a socialist because i think doctors shouldnt let people die.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T20:13:18.2549289Z
"Why do i even bother, oh and fyi, if all doctors are expected to treat all people, then buisness doesnt change. Like. At. All. Simply supply and demand." Well except for the business of lawsuits, as we stated above. The business of drug research and how/who we base that research on (a focus towards minorities doesnt help the majority much, extraneous medical procedures come about, total wastes of time). The business of government grants (they like to give more money to places that treat minorities). If everyone has it then one could make a case that its a necessity ... Then youre talking grants to minorities to pay for their care. All progressively based of course ... Which puts everyone else at a disadvantage in the process. Its just not a focus we should be pursuing because it comes at the cost of literally everyone else.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T20:17:36.4883501Z
"Half of these hypocrities who say they should have the freedom to choice, will keep their mouth shut when it comes to Abortion. Typical Conservatives." Only because the third life involved cancels out your choice. If docs were killing an innocent and unrelated person everytime they denied you a CT scan the exchange wouldnt be balanced now would it?
idoubtit says2015-09-04T20:19:20.3448256Z
Preston, I do understand what you are saying and am well aware of your profile. But you seem to think a person has no right to make a choice per their own personal convictions, and I disagree.
tajshar2k says2015-09-04T20:21:24.1160190Z
@Freedom So, here is your logic, Somebody aborted their child for god knows what reason, but in order to compensate you agree that doctors should let actual human beings die. Got it.
Preston says2015-09-04T20:22:05.8462865Z
Really i think people shouldnt make decissions, dude my idol is milton friedman, you name it, personal freedoms should have no bounds, but when someone signs into a social contract then they need to follow through.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T20:25:51.1897310Z
@Preston Then why are we having this conversation? Here I thought the whole point of this was a discussion of opinions, not legalities. If I'd known this, I'd have simply said let the lawyers duke it out!
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T20:30:09.4260557Z
"So, here is your logic, Somebody aborted their child for god knows what reason, but in order to compensate you agree that doctors should let actual human beings die. Got it." huh? Lost? People dont abort for unknown reasons, ever. They arent feeling something that no one out there have ever felt before. And they arent so much letting them die ... They dont even know their condition ... They havent entered into any agreement to help in the first place. How could they know that? The funniest thing about all this is you guys keep using life or death scenarios ... But the only way a doctor is ever going to have the time to find out if youre gay or not would involve a non life or death scenario, where you were conscious enough to disclose that type of information for them to go off of. Gay people arent dying because of denial of service ... Theyre being inconvenienced due to their choice of lifestyle is all.
Preston says2015-09-04T20:31:28.3078920Z
Idoubtit you misconstrued me as some supporter of socialism. While opinions matter, because they are the basis of ones moral compass and thus the drive behind legality. However you must read and not just blindly state.
Heterodox says2015-09-04T20:33:00.3172818Z
@tajshar2k If it's not already illegal it very likely will become illegal. This is what gays are/were fighting for after all. To get sexual orientation tacked on to the list of things in the anti-discrimination laws. Maybe I am the only one that finds the civil rights act ironic. We had slavery. We eventually eliminated it, but didn't have equality. To get equality we had to have slavery.
tajshar2k says2015-09-04T20:34:46.4447621Z
I'm not sure we needed to have slavery in order to have equality.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T20:36:04.2259529Z
"but when someone signs into a social contract then they need to follow through." Im pretty sure youve thoroughly scared anyone out of wanting to enter into any sort of social contract with you. I wouldnt provide a service for you ever unless i had a lawyer present. You'd cut the legs right out from under a good natured person.
Preston says2015-09-04T20:38:03.6300261Z
Hahaha freedom, im very kind dont you worry, i wouldnt provide you with a service though because you wouldnt complete your half or it.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T20:38:20.7121356Z
Preston, I wasn't saying you ARE a socialist. It's just that your opinions seem to me a bit anti-freedom. It was a little jab, you understand? I assumed you would, you've made your own. Don't take it that I put a uniform on you. You obviously have your heart and soul into this opinion, and that's not a bad thing, but I simply disagree with you.
Heterodox says2015-09-04T20:40:10.7240408Z
@tajshar2k May not, but that's where we are. When a man's labor isn't his own he is a slave.
Preston says2015-09-04T20:40:47.1392069Z
Idoubtit, i do appreciate the response, I appreciate your opinion, Do you find the fact its being compared to slavery as silly as i find it?
NotThatClever says2015-09-04T20:41:37.4917970Z
@idoubtit Yes, if a doctor is breaking the law, we can remove his license. We would not hesitate to revoke a medical license from a doctor that refused to treat blacks. This is no different. And we are not destroying his livelihood. He is perfectly free to move to a country that will allow discrimination.
Preston says2015-09-04T20:41:40.9917877Z
Idoubtit, i do appreciate the response, I appreciate your opinion, Do you find the fact its being compared to slavery as silly as i find it? We know that a mans work is his work, and to suggest that he wont be compensated for such is silly.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-04T20:47:25.4486197Z
"i wouldnt provide you with a service though because you wouldnt complete your half or it." I pay up front, and when i dont my credit score shows im honest and i follow through. Would it be discriminatory to you to run credit checks on people before providing service? Denying them for <620?
Preston says2015-09-04T20:50:32.4504262Z
Would it, yes, but not in a way that is offensive. If you run their score and they dont have insurance, and the service is not aleviating someone physically, then you may turn them down 30x over.
NotThatClever says2015-09-04T20:50:38.2380633Z
Courts have held that "Professional incompetence, bad character, immorality, professional misconduct, dishonorable conduct, conviction of criminal offense, and gross negligence form valid grounds for revocation of license. " http://physicians.uslegal.com/revocation-and-suspension-of-physician-licenses/#sthash.i83iUJCe.dpuf Don't like the rules? Don't seek to be licensed or change them via the legislature. Don't accept the terms and then complain after they are used as grounds to revoke your license.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T20:56:03.4221478Z
@NotSoClever Comparing refusal to treat blacks vs gays is not the same thing. There are religious convictions in regards to gays, not so with black people. If you want to get mad at religious principles then blame the people of thousands of years ago who created it, not the people of today who follow their faith that was put forth long ago. But either way, they have the right to their beliefs, and to live by them. @Preston Well, no, I don't find the slavery comparison to be silly, I'm on board with it and here is why: The one thing on this planet that a person can claim to truly own is themselves. You have the right to live your life per your own conviction, with the one constraint that you don't harm others (think murder, rape, etc) When others try to make you live your life per their convictions, that is mental slavery. I admit I'm having trouble trying to explain it. But don't you have the right to say who can enter your house and who can't? Imagine if others were to dictate that you don't, that you have allow in anyone who knocks on your door. Forget the dangerous part. It's the principle itself.
Heterodox says2015-09-04T21:04:34.7154253Z
@idoubtit It's about property rights, private property rights more specifically. The civil rights act gave people the right to services open to the public. What are services? Well, a doctor performs services. That is their labor, their property. The anti-discrimination laws say that someone else has a right to that doctor's property (his services). That means that he cannot refuse them and that is what makes him a slave.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T21:08:11.8113769Z
@Heterodox, I agree
Heterodox says2015-09-04T21:09:52.0214593Z
Well he can refuse people, just not based on their sex, religion, age, etc. Anyway, the issue of slavery stems from his property not being his own and the government saying other people have a right to it.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T21:11:01.7933353Z
I see this issue as more at stake here than whether or not a doctor should treat gay people.
NotThatClever says2015-09-04T21:18:47.0752653Z
@idoubtit, That is patently false. It wasn't that long ago that all major western religions saw interracial marriage as a sin. It was not that long ago that the Mormons held doctrine that stated blacks were cursed by God. And we have Muslims today quoting doctrine who believe being gay is punishable by death. Discriminating against blacks and gays is perfectly comparable. The only difference between the two groups is that one has an immutable characteristic whereas the other does not. All of that means little though and is slightly off topic from my points about revoking the license. If you would care to address those points I would be inclined to continue conversing. Otherwise, I am finished and wish you a happy holiday weekend.
Heterodox says2015-09-04T21:20:30.3775513Z
@idoubtit They're the same issue, people just don't see it that way for some reason. One is just a more specific instance. Now I am not saying it's as harsh as slavery was in the past, but it's still slavery and it's still a violation of a person's natural rights (a man's [or woman's for that matter] labor is his own). Anyway, you can probably see why I find the Civil Right Acts so ironic now. I am certainly not saying it's a good idea (for a doctor to refuse services) or moral (I don't usually try to pretend I know what is moral). I mean a doctor would likely go out of business. Lots of people would likely boycott anywho who discriminated based on those kinds of things, but it is their right to do so (though it is being stripped from them).
idoubtit says2015-09-04T21:29:28.3141069Z
@NotThatClever Is there anything in the Christian bible that specifically says inter-racial marriage is not allowed? I'm not referring to anything against marrying their enemy of same race. I mean specifically banning marrying of another race? I'm not recalling any such thing, but am no expert on the topic. But it does speak against homosexuality. Also, race is about physical characteristics, while homosexuality is about behavior. There is no comparison there. Not denying treatment based on physical characteristics one is born with and has no control over is not the same thing as denying treatment based on objection to that person's behavior.
NotThatClever says2015-09-04T21:33:03.2383773Z
Heterodox, Person's labor is their own right up until they ask for permission to perform their labor. Then it is no longer theirs. It becomes a labor contract. The same can be said about soliciting labor. In any form of labor that has two parties involved ( purchaser and laborer) the laborer and the purchaser should have the right to not enter into a contract with anyone they chose for any reason. However, when the State gets involved through licensing, the contract becomes contingent on the laborer satisfying certain criteria set by the State. The real argument is with the involvement of the State in private labor contracts.
NotThatClever says2015-09-04T21:41:48.4937443Z
Idoubtit, What religious texts actually say has little to do with how they are interpreted and weaponized. I can see that you are of the mind that being homosexual is a choice. That would mean that all people are born heterosexual and then choose to be homosexual. I used to think that way too. I rather like to say I have become enlightened about that subject these days and no longer believe such nonsense. But if that is your belief, you are entitled to it. It just ends our discussion though. We can not find common ground. Thank you for the discussion though.
idoubtit says2015-09-04T21:48:51.9448712Z
Actually, I have no opinion as to whether homosexuality is by birth or by choice. I've not seen conclusive evidence either way. So this has nothing to do my opinions here. My stance is based on acknowledging that those not in favor of homosexuality are just entitled to their beliefs and their choices, as are those who are in favor of it.
NotThatClever says2015-09-04T23:58:31.5879279Z
That is true. However, when personal beliefs turn into practical discrimination, a fault has been made. I personally think homosexuality is disgusting and repulsive. But I would never refuse service to anyone because of it.
Preston says2015-09-06T19:59:15.1350418Z
@Not, just so you understand, mormon doctrine never stated anything about blacks being cursed, it was a misconstruction of mormonism used to talk it down. Just as it was never doctrine to prevent blacks from being mormon. If you want to read up on it, goto mormon.Org
Heterodox says2015-09-08T08:53:59.8255894Z
@NotThatClever A doctor refusing service would be the same as there never having been a contract. Now, if they signed a contract and then refused, see above (breach of contract). The involvement of the government is being allowed, I imagine, through the Commerce Clause of the constitution. Many, myself included, would say the interpretation, rather the misinterpretation, on the Commerce Clause is really quite ridiculous (they can do anything! BS) and definitely not what was intended. Anyway, I still find it terribly ironic (and amusing) that we have substituted one form of slavery for another in the name of equality.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-08T14:07:21.5472622Z
"Courts have held that "Professional incompetence, bad character, immorality, professional misconduct, dishonorable conduct, conviction of criminal offense, and gross negligence form valid grounds for revocation of license." All i have to say is, if this is true then why cant we also revoke providing our own services to someone on the same grounds?? If I don't want to provide services to criminals (emergency or not) I shouldn't have to. If I don't want to provide my services based on immorality, I shouldn't have to. Bad character and negligence in society. You're gonna take a license away for the same reasoning im refusing service in the first place.
Bluepaintcan123 says2015-09-13T12:38:07.3475034Z
Has anyone mentioned that being a doctor is a secular job, meaning you ave to separate your religion from your duty as a doctor? Saying you have the ability to refuse medical help to a homosexual is refusing to do your job, and you deserve to be fired for that. If doctors could just pick and choose who they want to help, could the just as easily refuse service to Libertarians, or Conservatives, or Democrats? This is just leaving room for segregation in hospitals. Not only that, but what if they needed an issue looked at that day and the other doctors were busy? He'd have to wait for hours or go home after making an appointment. That issue could end up being serious without his knowing it, like if his appendix needed to be removed. A lot of people don't know how serious the problem is until they are in extreme pain. That homophobic doctor just put a patients life at risk, and if he comes back in an ambulance will the doctor be able to refuse again? I think it should be considered murder if they can refuse patients in emergency situations just because they're gay. This is just as ridiculous as a Muslim working at a grocery store, then refusing to touch the meat and alcohol that a person was buying. If there is something you are required to do in your job that goes against your beliefs, then don't bother trying to get the job in the first place. You must keep your beliefs separate from business, otherwise nothing would get done.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-14T15:32:28.0319753Z
"He'd have to wait for hours or go home after making an appointment. That issue could end up being serious without his knowing it, like if his appendix needed to be removed." This is what we've been talking about. It shouldnt matter either way what your special circumstances might be ... That person is not automatically contracted to do services/business/or whatever with you just because you come down with something. Needing your appendix removed sounds like a personal problem, why suddenly make it everyone elses problem. The rules of a society dont suddenly go out the window because youre in pain. That doctor has rights like any other individual does. As far as the muslim thing ... The employer should deal with that when its disclosed at employment. If they dont have a position for someone that doesnt involve those things ... No hire. But anti discrimination laws are hurting us there too ... You can blame these people saying 'no' for that one too. Because a job should absolutely be able to discriminate in that instance.
joemazz says2016-05-31T13:16:53.1258996Z
Not in canada because doctors are paid by the government and no one paid by the government should be able to use religion to descriminate
AngelMango says2018-07-05T07:34:36.5637929Z
The people who said yes should literally die.
Rollypolly says2019-11-06T10:47:18.2473607Z
I'm a conservative but I'm very pro-LGBT. Your sexual orientation is not something you can choose, Like your religion or choice of dress.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.