No Freedom of Religion in the practice of medicine

[Surfer]

I'm pretty sure these fertility docs wouldn't inseminate a single woman either. And if these lesbians want to exercise their "basic right" to have children they should argue with Mother Nature. I heard she's a real bitch sometimes. How about a married couple that can't afford it? Should somebody pay for their fertility? If not, then it's definitely NOT a basic right.

I think most people in America have absolutely no concept of what types of "basic rights" this country and it's constitution were founded upon.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[scotchnwater]

I didn't realize there was a "basic right" to be able to be artificially inseminated by your local fertility specialist. Would this include people who can't afford to pay for it? What about a child molester? Hey, don't go denying "basic rights" to anybody!

I've got a basic right for you... how about the right to refrain from doing something that your closely held and MAINSTREAM religious beliefs tells you is wrong?? How about the basic right to not have the government tell you which religious beliefs are invalid?

The lawsuit filed by this couple is absolutely frightening. Did they get what they wanted? Nope, because what they really want is for society as a whole to tell them that their situation is perfectly normal, accepted, and mainstream. Unfortunately, for the majority of americans, this is not true, so this couple will never get their ultimate wish, no matter how many judges or courts rule on their side.

1) What does "mainstream" have to do with anything? That doesn't inherently make things right/wrong.

2) There is a profound philosophical difference from declining to participate in something that is DIRECTLY against your beliefs (i.e. participating in an abortion) and something that is INDIRECTLY against your beliefs (the case in point).

In the first case (abortion, for example), you are DIRECTLY participating in the stopping of a life/potential life. People find THE ACT ITSELF INHERENTLY WRONG and opt not to participte.

That's different than the case here - the ACT ITSELF (IVF or whatever) is not morally murky (they do it for a FREAKIN' LIVING), they are just making a JUDGMENT on who they are doing it for. The problem with these kinds of judgments is on where we draw the line.

A lot of people are ok with this "line" because we currently, as a society, still accept - good, bad, or indifferent - discrimination based on sexual orientation. Read some of the previous posts and you'll see that is true. We probably wouldn't feel OK if the reasons were for more taboo prejudices such as race, religion, etc. What about deciding not to give IVF for disabled persons because you worried about what type of life the child would have? Or what if some Jewish docs didn't want to inseminate an Islamic couple because of the historic religious differences? It's really no different - in each case the doc is making a judgment based on their personal beliefs.

Do the docs have the right to make that call? Sure, but let's not try to disguise their decision as something it's not - it's discrimination pure and simple. We live in a country where they have the right to do that.

 

[aphistis]

They have the basic right to have children like any other human.
If a single woman can walk into a fertility clinic, get IVF, and get pregnant with donor sperm no questions asked, then are we going to deny her that right if she decided to sleep with other women? What if we didn't know about it? is that OK?
Please don't turn this into a government against fire arm baring good Christian citizens type of conspiracy.

News flash, plankton--IVF isn't having children "like any other human."

 

[Planktonmd]

News flash, plankton--IVF isn't having children "like any other human."

Yes it is: It's a sperm that finds an egg and becomes an embryo that tries to hang on to a uterus, isn't this natural enough for you?

 

[aphistis]

Yes it is: It's a sperm that finds an egg and becomes an embryo that tries to hang on to a uterus, isn't this natural enough for you?

I--like any other human--consider cryogenic freezers and harvesting/implantation surgery to be exclusion criteria for "natural."

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[Surfer]

The California Supreme Court Disagrees. Their opinion matters more.

I love how most liberals believe the courts opinion matters more than your own. Especially and UNTIL that opinion interferes with their own enlightened state of zen. Then the court is a bunch of monkeys (see ruling re: 2nd ammendment).

Do you think a couple of men/women appointed by an elected official are way more intelligent and god-like than the rest of society? I wouldn't let 5 appointed judges determine how I should practice medicine any day. In fact, why stop there, shouldn't we let the all-powerful judges tell me how I should do everything in life!?

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[Planktonmd]

I wouldn't let 5 appointed judges determine how I should practice medicine any day.

They do and you let them do it because if you don't they can take away your license to practice medicine.

 

[Southpaw]

Do the docs have the right to make that call? Sure, but let's not try to disguise their decision as something it's not - it's discrimination pure and simple. We live in a country where they have the right to do that.

Your belief of what is discrimination seems very far reaching. Accusing a doctor of not providing an elective service for anyone because of personally held beliefs is not discrimination. I have a personally held belief that I won't provide CPR to a 99 yr old 80 lb. osteoporic lady. It'd be barbaric. I personally would not give her CPR regardless of DNR status. I'd simply let someone else do it. I am not discriminating against her.

It's absolutely ridiculous that some of you are ready and willing to let the law dictate YOUR beliefs and YOUR practice of medicine. It seems completely, 100% worthless to train and make jack squat well into your 30s, then when you finally get out on your own, you want to let a few jokers from the court dictate your practice of medicine.

 

[Southpaw]

They do and you let them do it because if you don't they can take away your license to practice medicine.

They do for the same reasons that physicians lose respect, satisfaction, and money in our practice. Because we stand by and let other people take it.

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[Southpaw]

Suppose you are the only anesthesiologist on call at your hospital and YOU get called to intubate the 99 yo 80 lb lady. You are the only one qualified to intubate in the hospital at that time. You gonna say no? If she dies, You may very well be facing criminal charges as well as a civil lawsuit.

The law dictates my behavior. NOT my beliefs. It is not ridiculous.

There is a clear difference between elective and emergent, and management of such conditions. You think the physician in the lawsuit wouldn't save the lady's life if it needed saving? Hell yeah he would. He simply didn't want to do an elective procedure, but ENSURED that she could get it done elsewhere.

You created a completely different argument than presented in this thread. In an emergency situation anyone should do what it takes to save a life. Failure to do so is dereliction of duty, cruel, and should be prosecuted.

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[Southpaw]

No, I responded to your scenario in post 61. Saying that you "wouldn't do CPR (a life saving procedure) I'd let someone else do it" is a cheap way of adhering to your value system. When it comes down to it YOU would do the CPR if you had a duty to see that it got done and no one else was available because you fear the consequences of adhering to your personal values.

I didn't present an emergent situation where I was the only person available. You did. There is a clear difference, which I have explained. I presented a situation much more applicable to the case at hand.

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[Southpaw]

You wrote: "It's absolutely ridiculous that some of you are ready and willing to let the law dictate YOUR beliefs and YOUR practice of medicine. It seems completely, 100% worthless to train and make jack squat well into your 30s, then when you finally get out on your own, you want to let a few jokers from the court dictate your practice of medicine."

Your earlier post indicates that you obviously feel that the right thing IS to let the 99 year old go despite her and her family's wishes. You indicated that doing otherwise is "Barbaric" You still wouldn't let her go, you would commit "barbaric "acts on her if no one else is avaiable because of fear of the consequences. Even though this is contrary to your personal values. That is the point that I am making.

_

You are still trying to change the scenario I presented. I don't see the point of it. I'm not performing CPR on the lady, and I can't think of a single hospital where I'd be the only person who'd have to. Either way, we both should agree there is a clear difference between emergent and elective. I do not believe any physician should be required by law to perform elective procedures on patients when it interferes with their personal beliefs, provided that they ensure that the patient is referred to another physician. Again, I'm very surprised that physicians and medical students believe the government should mandate their decisions.

 

[scotchnwater]

Your belief of what is discrimination seems very far reaching. Accusing a doctor of not providing an elective service for anyone because of personally held beliefs is not discrimination. I have a personally held belief that I won't provide CPR to a 99 yr old 80 lb. osteoporic lady. It'd be barbaric. I personally would not give her CPR regardless of DNR status. I'd simply let someone else do it. I am not discriminating against her.

It's absolutely ridiculous that some of you are ready and willing to let the law dictate YOUR beliefs and YOUR practice of medicine. It seems completely, 100% worthless to train and make jack squat well into your 30s, then when you finally get out on your own, you want to let a few jokers from the court dictate your practice of medicine.

To offer a service to one group of people and not another based on a certain criteria sounds like discrimination to me. I'm a little confused as to how else you would define discrimination.

The argument is not whether or not this is discrimination, the argument is whether or not the discrimination is justifiable.

There are a lot of times in medicine that you have to put aside your own personal views. Are you going to deny pre-natal services to an unwed mother because you disagree with her having pre-marital sex? How about taking care of an asthma patient who continues to smoke? You gonna stop seeing your cancer patient once you find out they smoke a little bud? What about a family that wants to withdraw care from a patient when you think they should press on?

Do you think it's your job as a physician to impose your moral will on all patients you come in contact with? Are you just assuming that your moral views are superior to those of others, and since you are in power (as the physician) all others must comply with you?

At what point do you decide that you're "doing something against your beliefs"? If you're on the wards yet, you probably have figured that you will participate in care/decisions every day that you may not agree 100% with.

When do you speak up and bow-out? When the idea of what you're doing is more personally reprehensible to you? When the actual act violates a certain moral/ethical code?

Life is good in the Ivory Tower, but I think you'll find that pragmatism - not idealism - is going to carry the day in the field of medicine.

 

[mille125]

To offer a service to one group of people and not another based on a certain criteria sounds like discrimination to me. I'm a little confused as to how else you would define discrimination.

The argument is not whether or not this is discrimination, the argument is whether or not the discrimination is justifiable.

There are a lot of times in medicine that you have to put aside your own personal views. Are you going to deny pre-natal services to an unwed mother because you disagree with her having pre-marital sex? How about taking care of an asthma patient who continues to smoke? You gonna stop seeing your cancer patient once you find out they smoke a little bud? What about a family that wants to withdraw care from a patient when you think they should press on? Do you think it's your job as a physician to impose your moral will on all patients you come in contact with? Are you just assuming that your moral views are superior to those of others, and since you are in power (as the physician) all others must comply with you?

At what point do you decide that you're "doing something against your beliefs"? If you're on the wards yet, you probably have figured that you will participate in care/decisions every day that you may not agree 100% with.

When do you speak up and bow-out? When the idea of what you're doing is more personally reprehensible to you? When the actual act violates a certain moral/ethical code?

Life is good in the Ivory Tower, but I think you'll find that pragmatism - not idealism - is going to carry the day in the field of medicine.

Sometimes you do have to put aside your own personal views. However, you should be very careful about keeping noncompliant patients in your practice. This is a recipe for disaster. Patients who dont take their meds as prescribed or dont follow through with treatment recommendations are quickly discharged from my practice.

 

[Southpaw]

There are a lot of times in medicine that you have to put aside your own personal views. Are you going to deny pre-natal services to an unwed mother because you disagree with her having pre-marital sex? How about taking care of an asthma patient who continues to smoke? You gonna stop seeing your cancer patient once you find out they smoke a little bud? What about a family that wants to withdraw care from a patient when you think they should press on?

Do you think it's your job as a physician to impose your moral will on all patients you come in contact with? Are you just assuming that your moral views are superior to those of others, and since you are in power (as the physician) all others must comply with you?

Me personally? No, I would provide care for the examples you listed. But I would like the right to NOT provide care if it interfered with my personal views, provided the patient can get care elsewhere without problems. Look, I wonder why someone who is only giving IVF to select groups is in REI to begin with, but I think it's his right to give care to whomever he wants, provided that there are no shortage of providers in that area. It's his own pocketbook he's hurting.

This isn't about moral views, or about one's being superior to others. This is about a court of law imposing its will on the practice of ONE physician. To me, that's disgusting.

Again, I believe your view of discrimination to be very far reaching. Scholarships are given to select groups. Children of veterans, children of teachers, children of handicapped parents, handicapped people themselves. I guess the Cali Supreme Court needs to reign down on them too right?

I don't really believe any of this is going anywhere. Simply put, I want the government involved in as little of my life as possible. Anytime the government gets involved, things get completely screwed up 100X worse than they originally were. Let them provide defense, fix roads, and deliver the mail. That's about it. When the government is telling one single physician how he should deliver care, when there is plenty of competition to go around, that's sick. How about practices that provide boutique care, or don't accept Medicare/Medicaid? It doesn't matter whether I think that's right or wrong. But I certainly don't think the friggin' Supreme Court needs to tell them what to do with their career.

 

[Laurel123]

This issue should not be a lawsuit. I don't think that it should be going to the courts so that more silly guidelines should be impressed upon us to hinder our practice of medicine.

That being said, I totally disagree with these infertility doctors. We always perform procedures that are against our moral beliefs. We fix up perps that are hurt after they have murdered someone and then run from the police. We waste valuable blood products on some felon that got beat up in jail. Just last week, we performed a cervical cerclage on a 14 year old meth addict pregnant with twins when I truly believe with every moral fiber that she should not be having these babies. We do back surgeries and knee replacements on lazy morbidly obese people who only have pain because they are so fat and will continue to have because they will continue to be fat....

The list goes on. It sometimes makes me angry because this is not at all consistant with my morals and my beliefs of how the world should be. But ultimately, they are my moral judgements and my prejudices. I am here as a physician to make medical decisions and occasionally ethical decisions based on my medical training and not to impose my personal belief system on my patients. I can't transfuse an adult Jehovah's witness because it is against my beliefs to refuse blood products when they are critically necessary. I can't insist we tie the tubes during a C-section of some loser alcoholic who is bringing her 8th unwanted child into this world.

 

[deleted50478]

Anytime the government gets involved, things get completely screwed up 100X worse than they originally were. Let them provide defense, fix roads, and deliver the mail. That's about it.

 

[jwk]

So how is this whole situation any different than the countless physicians nowadays who refuse to accept Medicare patients into their practices?

Shouldn't any physician, absent a contractual obligation, have the right not to enter into a doctor/patient relationship? Restaurants and businesses everywhere have signs posted saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

 

[deleted9493]

So how is this whole situation any different than the countless physicians nowadays who refuse to accept Medicare patients into their practices?

Shouldn't any physician, absent a contractual obligation, have the right not to enter into a doctor/patient relationship? Restaurants and businesses everywhere have signs posted saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Couldn't agree more. Our culture is so riddled with contradiction it truly feels absurd to me.

The matter of multi-culturalism demonstrates this well. Many in our country claim to be multi-cultural in their beliefs, openly embracing the choices of those in other countries around the world. However, those same people have significant issues with women being valued as cattle and daughters not given emergent medical care after disfiguring injury (lost marriage price?). But oh, we're multi-cultural. Right.

The minute that one stops practicing medicine according to conscience-- according to conviction of what is in the best interest of the patient--I see a sure evidence that that physician has lost his 'fitness' to practice medicine. Medical practice that is focused on self-interest and avoiding litigation is in and of itself a contradiction...unless of course you do something funny with the definitions of medical practice laid down by those who have gone before us. Self-preservation certainly doesn't seem to be a common theme among them.

The physicians being discussed in this case demonstrated in their referral that yes, they were discriminatory but that their interest yet remained in the patient's care. Is the just response really a lawsuit? This is justice?

 

[Planktonmd]

I am shocked to see the number of young physicians and medical students who chose so early in their careers to embrace a menatlity that is in direct contradiction with the very foundation of this great profession.
The day you decided to become a physician you basically declared that you will care for patients regardless of their religion, color, or any other consideration. They are ALL just patients.
If you feel that your care is going to be given to certain people and denied to others based on certain mythology or whatever nonsense they implanted in you when they brain washed you as a child, then you simply don't belong in this profession.

 

[militarymd]

I'll take care of any one....black, white, yellow, homo, straight, bi.......they're all the same....


AS LONG AS THEY have GREEN in their wallets and they're willing to part with it.

 

[jwk]

If you feel that your care is going to be given to certain people and denied to others based on certain mythology or whatever nonsense they implanted in you when they brain washed you as a child, then you simply don't belong in this profession.

I see - so people of faith have no business being in medicine? Gimme a break.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I'll take care of any one....black, white, yellow, homo, straight, bi.......they're all the same....


AS LONG AS THEY have GREEN in their wallets and they're willing to part with it.

Screw all that philosophy noise!

 

[Surfer]

based on certain mythology or whatever nonsense they implanted in you when they brain washed you as a child, then you simply don't belong in this profession.

I find this incredibly offensive and naive. How can you be a good physician when you consider people who hold personal religious beliefs as "brain washed." What kind of physician has such intolerant views towards good people of faith?

I love how you profess tolerance, as long as that tolerance means being completely INtolerant of anybody who believes there is actually a power in this universe that is mightier than your own ego.

 

[Southpaw]

If you feel that your care is going to be given to certain people and denied to others based on certain mythology or whatever nonsense they implanted in you when they brain washed you as a child, then you simply don't belong in this profession.

You, like California, want to force every physician to provide care against their moral beliefs. You think that's why we became physicians to begin with, right? You want to completely abolish discrimination whereever it exists. And then........you openly discriminate against those with belief, and you do it with more disgust than anyone previously in this thread.

 

[Planktonmd]

The truth is painful sometimes and many people prefer the warmth of a childhood lie over the cold hard truth.
If you claim to be a physician then you are also claiming to be a scientist, scientists believe in logic not fairy tales.

 

[Planktonmd]

I see - so people of faith have no business being in medicine? Gimme a break.

No, that's not what I said, I said you should keep your relationship with whatever or whomever you choose to worship out of the practice of modern medicine.
You can be religious but your patients should not have to be affected by your beliefs.

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[pdeco1]

This case is very simple. A business cannot discriminate against protected classes.

McDonalds cannot deny a protected class a hamburger even though BK, Chick Fil-a and Wendys are across the street. Footlocker cannot deny a protected class even though there are 10 other shoe stoes in the mall. Doctors are not exempt.

To those who believe gay and lesbian couples cannot raise children properly, please educate yourself. Your wanna-be doctors, base your view point on some facts.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/cdir/2006/00000015/00000005/art00008?crawler=true

The people hurting children of gay parents are hate mongering, gay bashers. I am sure that is what Jesus wants you to do.

 

[aphistis]

The truth is painful sometimes and many people prefer the warmth of a childhood lie over the cold hard truth.
If you claim to be a physician then you are also claiming to be a scientist, scientists believe in logic not fairy tales.

Scientists believe in science, actually. "Logic" and "science" are not interchangeable terms by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, please continue talking down to everyone who believes in anything at all. Seeing your open-minded tolerance in action is proving very illuminating.

 

[Planktonmd]

Scientists believe in science, actually. "Logic" and "science" are not interchangeable terms by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, please continue talking down to everyone who believes in anything at all. Seeing your open-minded tolerance in action is proving very illuminating.

Where did you see me say that science and logic are interchangeable?
A scientist believes in logic, this means a scientist always looks for LOGICAL explanations for life questions, if you abandon the search for LOGICAL answers you can NOT be a scientist, but you can be a good believer.
Is that too complicated?
I am not sure who is talking down to people here because you seem to take every opportunity to say that I am wrong without offering an alternative to my logic, or maybe you are offering one: We should not question things that were written by some unknown people 2000 years ago because these unknown people claim that they were contacted by god, is this the logic you are offering???
I choose to disagree with such logic and I think it has to be kept away from the practice of modern medicine.

 

[jetproppilot]

I choose to disagree with such logic and I think it has to be kept away from the practice of modern medicine.

You're in a huge minority there, Plank.

Who's to say your "logic" is more acceptable than a christian/jew/buddhist/etc?

Our "science" is not bulletproof.

It is not the whole truth.

Some of the brightest scientists on the planet, past and present, had faith in a Higher Power.

I respect your stance.

I humbly disagree with your stance and find it shortsighted of you to imply that a physician must cast aside his religious beliefs at work.....especially for elective procedures.

Lets take abortion, for example...a very polarized subject...

I've worked at a non-catholic institution where a couple were done....I opted to have a partner do the case instead of me.

Not saying I'm right or wrong....thats for the Man upstairs to figure out.....but I certainly will be dictated by my faith for elective procedures.

Noone will force me to do something I don't believe is right.

 

[deleted9493]

The following is taken from one of my favorite writers, John Patrick a Canadian physician/philosopher who spent much of his career developing nutrition treatments for cystic fibrosis patients.

These are questions that he poses to be unanswerable by science/medicine but yet are the questions which we and our patients are in most need of answering. Much remains to be addressed when we ourselves have not yet dwelt at this level of thought. It is for this reason that I believe that medicine NEEDS religion/God. It falls drastically short, otherwise.


1. WHERE DID I COME FROM?
The question of how things begin is the deliberately avoided question in most science courses, yet the answer to the question must influence the way anyone, including a scientist, lives and practices his profession. The answer can either limit or enlarge his horizons. Most often it limits. If there is no God, said Dostoyevsky, everything is permissible, including cheating and lying. The only question is "can you get away with it?"

2. WHY AM I HERE?
If we believe the advertisers the answer is simple; to just do what we feel like doing. The problem is that this is a deeply unfulfilling way to live, as the huge consumption of antidepressants and tranquilizers by our culture illustrates. A book could be written about this alone, indeed many books have been written and largely forgotten. The law was given that it might go well with them and their children.

3. WHERE AM I GOING?
This question is suppressed by most of our contemporaries. They say, according to the polls, that the overwhelming majority believe in God but they live as though this God makes no demands and will not judge. This is a monumentally incoherent theology.

4. HOW DO I COME TO TERMS WITH DEATH?
Here is another question whose insistent beat in the background of our lives we constantly deny. We are a culture in denial of its own deepest needs, namely to honestly deal with the question of death. Truly things fall apart when we can no longer hear God calling to us in the valley of the shadow of death. For wise men of old, living with the inevitability of mortality was central to wisdom.

5. HOW DO I MAKE SENSE OF SUFFERING?
In all our lives suffering will interfere to a greater or lesser extent. There is no satisfactory account to be rendered if that account must invoke only what we can know now. Suffering therefore forces us to address the question of whether we have eternal spiritual dimensions. If we don't, life is an absurd form of the blackest of black humour.

6. HOW CAN I POSSIBLY BELIEVE IN JUSTICE?
This old cry is found most profoundly in the psalms, where again and again the poet asks; "Why do the evil prosper?" Again this is a question which cannot be resolved in the here and now. Yet again it forces us to ponder the possibility that there are awesome eternal dimensions to our being. Most of our judges believe that they make the law, which necessarily makes the rest of us serfs; the severity of that serfdom being merely a consequence of the whims of our rulers.

7. WHAT CAN I KNOW?
Many students think that only science can provide secure knowledge, until it is pointed out to them that the question; "Is secure knowledge obtained only through science?" presupposes categories, ideas and concepts that science could never have invented. One of the great needs of our society is to become less enamoured of science. Currently too much is given and too much expected from a discipline which deals only with the limited amount of reality which can be touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted directly or indirectly.

8. WHAT SHOULD I BELIEVE?
The fundamental ideas that rule our lives and either do or do not succeed in making sense of our lives, cannot be proved in the way that science conceives of proof. But the question of whether there is or is not a God, what sort of God, whether sin is a real category, whether Jesus really died for our sins, whether the resurrection occurred and whether Jesus will come again are undeniably important questions. The answers to these questions will change our lives if we think at all.

9. WHAT MUST I DO?
From the answers to question 8 flow logical answers to this question. If you believe there is neither God nor judgement then any expression of personal power or desire is perfectly legitimate, provided that you can persuade or intimidate your fellow human beings into acceptance. Politics becomes a realm not of ethical discussion but of sophisticated persuasion.

 

[FriendlyFire]

1. WHERE DID I COME FROM?
The question of how things begin is the deliberately avoided question in most science courses, yet the answer to the question must influence the way anyone, including a scientist, lives and practices his profession. The answer can either limit or enlarge his horizons. Most often it limits. If there is no God, said Dostoyevsky, everything is permissible, including cheating and lying. The only question is "can you get away with it?"

I agree.

If there is no God, everybody could just cheat and lie all they wanted.

I don't want everybody to just cheat and steal all they want.

Consequently God must exist.


We probably all think according to appeal to consequences. We aren't truth machines. We lie to ourselves to be comfortable.

Here is a Q:
If God says what is right and wrong.


What keeps you from saying f.. you God, I will still steal all I want?

You haven't provided a single solution.
You were taken hostage by your parents as a kid.
Remarkable how strong the correlation is between upbringing environment and your view on life later.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

The following is taken from one of my favorite writers, John Patrick a Canadian physician/philosopher who spent much of his career developing nutrition treatments for cystic fibrosis patients.

These are questions that he poses to be unanswerable by science/medicine but yet are the questions which we and our patients are in most need of answering. Much remains to be addressed when we ourselves have not yet dwelt at this level of thought. It is for this reason that I believe that medicine NEEDS religion/God. It falls drastically short, otherwise.


1. WHERE DID I COME FROM?
The question of how things begin is the deliberately avoided question in most science courses, yet the answer to the question must influence the way anyone, including a scientist, lives and practices his profession. The answer can either limit or enlarge his horizons. Most often it limits. If there is no God, said Dostoyevsky, everything is permissible, including cheating and lying. The only question is "can you get away with it?"

2. WHY AM I HERE?
If we believe the advertisers the answer is simple; to just do what we feel like doing. The problem is that this is a deeply unfulfilling way to live, as the huge consumption of antidepressants and tranquilizers by our culture illustrates. A book could be written about this alone, indeed many books have been written and largely forgotten. The law was given that it might go well with them and their children.

3. WHERE AM I GOING?
This question is suppressed by most of our contemporaries. They say, according to the polls, that the overwhelming majority believe in God but they live as though this God makes no demands and will not judge. This is a monumentally incoherent theology.

4. HOW DO I COME TO TERMS WITH DEATH?
Here is another question whose insistent beat in the background of our lives we constantly deny. We are a culture in denial of its own deepest needs, namely to honestly deal with the question of death. Truly things fall apart when we can no longer hear God calling to us in the valley of the shadow of death. For wise men of old, living with the inevitability of mortality was central to wisdom.

5. HOW DO I MAKE SENSE OF SUFFERING?
In all our lives suffering will interfere to a greater or lesser extent. There is no satisfactory account to be rendered if that account must invoke only what we can know now. Suffering therefore forces us to address the question of whether we have eternal spiritual dimensions. If we don't, life is an absurd form of the blackest of black humour.

6. HOW CAN I POSSIBLY BELIEVE IN JUSTICE?
This old cry is found most profoundly in the psalms, where again and again the poet asks; "Why do the evil prosper?" Again this is a question which cannot be resolved in the here and now. Yet again it forces us to ponder the possibility that there are awesome eternal dimensions to our being. Most of our judges believe that they make the law, which necessarily makes the rest of us serfs; the severity of that serfdom being merely a consequence of the whims of our rulers.

7. WHAT CAN I KNOW?
Many students think that only science can provide secure knowledge, until it is pointed out to them that the question; "Is secure knowledge obtained only through science?" presupposes categories, ideas and concepts that science could never have invented. One of the great needs of our society is to become less enamoured of science. Currently too much is given and too much expected from a discipline which deals only with the limited amount of reality which can be touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted directly or indirectly.

8. WHAT SHOULD I BELIEVE?
The fundamental ideas that rule our lives and either do or do not succeed in making sense of our lives, cannot be proved in the way that science conceives of proof. But the question of whether there is or is not a God, what sort of God, whether sin is a real category, whether Jesus really died for our sins, whether the resurrection occurred and whether Jesus will come again are undeniably important questions. The answers to these questions will change our lives if we think at all.

9. WHAT MUST I DO?
From the answers to question 8 flow logical answers to this question. If you believe there is neither God nor judgement then any expression of personal power or desire is perfectly legitimate, provided that you can persuade or intimidate your fellow human beings into acceptance. Politics becomes a realm not of ethical discussion but of sophisticated persuasion.

I really wish I did believe in a particular religion, because I'm sure it would be comforting. I don't though, and not one of the questions listed above is difficult to answer.

 

[geogil]

I really wish I did believe in a particular religion, because I'm sure it would be comforting. I don't though, and not one of the questions listed above is difficult to answer.

You might feel differently if your own mortality was more imminent than 50-60 years away.

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[lane]

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73125

WND MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Feds protect doctors from being forced to perform abortions
'Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree'
Posted: August 22, 2008
10:47 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released information yesterday about a proposed new rule that would strengthen protection for medical professionals who refuse to perform abortions for moral or religious reasons.

"Health care professionals should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience," said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a conference call with reporters.

The Associated Press quoted Leavitt saying, "Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree."

The rule, if confirmed, would apply to the nation's several hundred thousand medical institutions that receive federal funding. It would compel them to certify in writing their compliance with three currently existing federal laws that allow health professionals to exempt themselves from performing procedures contrary to their conscience.

Leavitt told reporters the new rule would severely penalize violating institutions, including the loss of government funding, and make it easier for health care professionals who feel they've faced retaliation for their decisions of conscience to file a complaint.

The wording of the 42-page proposed rule also makes it clear that the right of conscience does not extend to doctors only but to any who "assist in the performance" of abortions. The rule specifically cites the example of nurses and workers who clean the equipment used in abortion and sterilization procedures.

Several organizations, including Planned Parenthood, have objected that the proposed rule is too vague and could limit patients' access to reproductive services.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told the AP that the rule "fails to give assurances that current laws about abortion will not be stretched to cover birth control."

Leavitt, however, confirmed in his blog that while an earlier version of the rule leaked out with wording that may lead to that conclusion, the current wording strictly covers abortion and sterilization.

"Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," Leavitt told the AP.

"This regulation is not about contraception," he said. "It is very closely focused on abortion and a physician's conscience."

Meanwhile, pro-life groups are lauding the new rule.

"This proposal ensures that doctors and other medical personnel will retain the constitutional right to listen to their own conscience when it comes to performing or participating in an abortion," Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, told the AP. "These regulations will ensure that pro-life medical personnel will not be forced to engage in the unconscionable killing of innocent human life."

The proposed rule makes the case for its necessity within the text:

"There appears to be an attitude toward the health care professions that health care professionals and institutions should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination," the rule states. "In some instances the standards of professional organizations have been used to define the exercise of conscience to be unprofessional, forcing health care professionals to choose between their capacity to practice in good standing and their right of conscience."

Leavitt explained on his blog recent guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for example, could be interpreted to require a doctor to perform abortions to be considered competent. If a doctor won't, he or she can't practice medicine.

"Freedom of expression and action are unfit barter for admission to medical employment or training," Leavitt told reporters.

Before the rule is finalized, the Department of Health and Human Services has established a 30-day public comment period. The text of the rule contains an invitation for people to submit comments directly to www.Regulations.gov or via email at [email protected]. If commenting online, people are asked to click on the "Comment or Submission" link and enter the keywords "provider conscience."

if this is going to take place at the federal level, how could they not overturn the decision discussed in this thread?

 

[Leverage]

I'll take care of any one....black, white, yellow, homo, straight, bi.......they're all the same....


AS LONG AS THEY have GREEN in their wallets and they're willing to part with it.

BREVITY

 

[Leverage]

The truth is painful sometimes and many people prefer the warmth of a childhood lie over the cold hard truth.
If you claim to be a physician then you are also claiming to be a scientist, scientists believe in logic not fairy tales.

And you know the truth???

You are going off the deep end....

 

[Planktonmd]

And you know the truth???

You are going off the deep end....

Does that mean I am going to hell?

 

[deleted126335]

.

 

[dhb]

Let them provide defense.

Ohhh cause they haven't f...ked that up