Cnussey Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Holy crap--I hope this thread is a joke (pardon then pun). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamP Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 LOL of the week, for sure. its been a slow week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mig174 Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 I'm pleased by the results of this thread You are all intelligent people and of course, this was just to see if anyone that actually thinks like that would pop up. Good to see Poe's law in action, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_rural_doc Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Bad post. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_rural_doc Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 I'm pleased by the results of this thread You are all intelligent people and of course, this was just to see if anyone that actually thinks like that would pop up. Good to see Poe's law in action, as well. Ha ha...;-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mig174 Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Way to make all Christians look completely judemental, careless and insensitive... I happen to love Jesus a lot. But never would I force this belief on a patient, particularly by asking them to pray over a gamma knife! The only thing you might get away with is not performing abortions. However, you have every responsibility to give your patient access to someone that will. I purposely didn't specify a religion in my post and I highly doubt you are that kind of Christian. You seem like an OK guy. Also, you are the one that made the generalization of me making Christains look "judgemental, careless and insensitive". I don't agree with the bolded part. I don't think religion should play a part in that decision. If it's legal by law, then you should provide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_rural_doc Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 You're right. I did make that assumption. Sorry! But as a side note, it is legal as a doctor to not perform abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mig174 Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 ok. i stand corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontariostudent Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 I'm seriously not impressed by this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 You're right. I did make that assumption. Sorry! But as a side note, it is legal as a doctor to not perform abortions. True, although if I recall recently in Ontario at the College there was a push to basically prevent doctors from using their personal moral beliefs as a basis for decide what procedures they would perform. I think it was barely defeated(?) so things don't appear particularly static. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shay19 Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Religion is against science (which is simply awful !! ) I wish to differ this because there are religions which actually don't oppose science. @OP: converting the very patients you're treating and THEN treating them is a form of threat : "you convert to my religion, or you will die". That's unethical on many levels. YOU are allowed the freedom of exercising yur religion but not imposing it on others; your patients have the freedom to exercise theirs or none. Lastly, about the refusal of administering cures because of your religious views: what you believe in is not necessarily applicable to what your paients believes - i.e. you can refuse to give contraceptives, but that won't stop your patient from having sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 ....................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 I have and always will believe that religion and medicine should be completely separate ideas and that doctors should only respect the beliefs of their patient, not themselves when it comes to their patients treatment. The thing about 'personal beliefs' is that they don't become personal anymore when you refuse treatment. Also, "finding someone who will" isn't really the best solution in a limited resource system, IMO. Like I find it really weird when people make a big deal about pts refusing some treatments (like the classic Jehova's witness pt refusing the blood transfusion). If they refuse to let medicine heal them, I have no problem with that. I think the medical community can only educate, and never intervene with the wishes of their pts (with the exception of people being in the proper state of mind to consent/decide, which is a whole other road to tread on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estairella Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 The thing about 'personal beliefs' is that they don't become personal anymore when you refuse treatment. Also, "finding someone who will" isn't really the best solution in a limited resource system, IMO. I think what you're trying to say is that they don't stay personal, in which case you're correct, but that doesn't mean they are not still personal. And I guess it's strange to me how important you feel patients' beliefs are without considering why we value patient autonomy. We value patient autonomy because (at least in Western thinking), we place great emphasis on individual liberty - that is to say, we are the sole masters over ourselves. This is equally true for doctors as it is for patients. This is why you cannot 'force' a doctor to administer a treatment anymore than you can 'force' a patient to receive one. And perhaps we are lucky in Canada, as pretty much the only controversial decision we have to make is about abortions. In America, most physicians choose NOT to perform lethal injections on essentially personal beliefs grounds... what would you do in this case? (And there are countries out there where doctors are required to perform lethal injections for the death penalty, without any recourse... such as in China). Now don't try to argue that the lethal injection is not a treatment - when a prisoner is condemned to die by injection, I would argue such an injection administered in the presence of physician will reduce complications so that the death is as peaceful as possible - palliative care, if you will. But I would never participate in such a ritual, and I would argue that 99% of Canadian doctors would also refuse (including pro-choice doctors who want to make performing abortions mandatory). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 I have and always will believe that religion and medicine should be completely separate ideas and that doctors should only respect the beliefs of their patient, not themselves when it comes to their patients treatment. The thing about 'personal beliefs' is that they don't become personal anymore when you refuse treatment. Also, "finding someone who will" isn't really the best solution in a limited resource system, IMO. Yeah as above person said, nobody is going to force me to do something I feel is immoral. That's unethical to go ahead and do something even when it goes against what I believe is right. Like I find it really weird when people make a big deal about pts refusing some treatments (like the classic Jehova's witness pt refusing the blood transfusion). If they refuse to let medicine heal them, I have no problem with that. Yeah that's perfectly fine and patients have the right to refuse treatment for whatever reason they want, religious or otherwise. But if parents are trying to refuse essential medical care for their children, then all bets are off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Now don't try to argue that the lethal injection is not a treatment - when a prisoner is condemned to die by injection, I would argue such an injection administered in the presence of physician will reduce complications so that the death is as peaceful as possible - palliative care, if you will. But I would never participate in such a ritual, and I would argue that 99% of Canadian doctors would also refuse (including pro-choice doctors who want to make performing abortions mandatory). I'm sorry, but you're mixing apples and oranges. Lethal inj. IMO isn't treatment, it's killing people against their will. I can't see how this fits into a category of treatment. And palliative care is making someone comfortable while they die naturally. Once again, I can't see how it's the same as lethal injection. Yeah as above person said, nobody is going to force me to do something I feel is immoral. That's unethical to go ahead and do something even when it goes against what I believe is right. Yeah that's perfectly fine and patients have the right to refuse treatment for whatever reason they want, religious or otherwise. But if parents are trying to refuse essential medical care for their children, then all bets are off. Well of course there are limits to what one will do for someone. But I was specifically referring to denying a treatment that mainstream medicine would agree is both appropriate and necessary for that particular person. And I agree with you about the parents/kids. There's a certain level of capacity involved in the decision process, and kids just aren't ready to make that call. So I think kids should be given the treatment until they are old enough to decide for themselves, regardless of what their parents want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Well of course there are limits to what one will do for someone. But I was specifically referring to denying a treatment that mainstream medicine would agree is both appropriate and necessary for that particular person. It doesn't really matter how many people accept the action, to be honest. In fact, the more people that feel something is appropriate, the easier it is for them to go and find another doctor to do it. Example: I personally support the right for women to have an abortion, but I don't think I could ever perform them myself. Nobody can force me to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 It doesn't really matter how many people accept the action, to be honest. In fact, the more people that feel something is appropriate, the easier it is for them to go and find another doctor to do it. Example: I personally support the right for women to have an abortion, but I don't think I could ever perform them myself. Nobody can force me to do that. yeah, you make a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estairella Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 ILethal inj. IMO isn't treatment, it's killing people against their will. I can't see how this fits into a category of treatment. Replace "people" with "unborn children" and you have the pro-life movement in a nutshell. And "IMO" = "in my opinion" = "my personal beliefs". Sorry, you don't get to exclude something simply because you don't believe its a treatment... I thought that was what we were arguing all along. But I was specifically referring to denying a treatment that mainstream medicine would agree is both appropriate and necessary for that particular person. Many abortions are not 'necessary' in that there is no fetal defect, risk to the mother, etc. Can those then be denied by healthcare? Also, "Canada + US medicine" is not 'mainstream medicine'. Here are just some examples: - in Australia, only in a tiny part is abortion legal by request ('elective') - in Ireland, abortion is only to protect a woman's life (that's right, even if you're raped you can't get rid of it) - in Spain, not legal by request - in Malta and Vatican city (for obvious reasons), not legal at all And those are just some Western European countries. It's a lot less progressive the further east and south you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 I never argued that abortions are treatment. I don't think they are. The same way I don't think lethal injections are treatment, as well as something like cosmetic surgery for purely esthetic reasons, or "pulling the plug". I was referring to a doctor refusing to give a necessary treatment. Like if, for a hypothetical situation, if a Jehova's Witness physician refused to give a blood transfusion. Would you consider that okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Replace "people" with "unborn children" and you have the pro-life movement in a nutshell. And "IMO" = "in my opinion" = "my personal beliefs". Sorry, you don't get to exclude something simply because you don't believe its a treatment... I thought that was what we were arguing all along. Many abortions are not 'necessary' in that there is no fetal defect, risk to the mother, etc. Can those then be denied by healthcare? Also, "Canada + US medicine" is not 'mainstream medicine'. Here are just some examples: - in Australia, only in a tiny part is abortion legal by request ('elective') - in Ireland, abortion is only to protect a woman's life (that's right, even if you're raped you can't get rid of it) - in Spain, not legal by request - in Malta and Vatican city (for obvious reasons), not legal at all And those are just some Western European countries. It's a lot less progressive the further east and south you go. I really don't believe abortions are right, ever...but I have friends who have had them and I still held their hands and supported them. What really pisses me off? People selecting abortions if they are unhappy with the gender or "problems" of the child. Absolutely ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 I really don't believe abortions are right, ever... what about rape victims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 what about rape victims? Sorry Mike, that baby is not at fault. It's just my personal opinion...I think all those babies should live. I think the raper should be castrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Sorry Mike, that baby is not at fault. It's just my personal opinion...I think all those babies should live. I think the raper should be castrated. I imagine the kid would have quite an interesting life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnussey Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 I imagine the kid would have quite an interesting life... I would "hope" that perhaps the mother would give it up for adoption to a loving and needing family, but no--I am not blind to the repercussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.