Say, isn't the text of your link a deliberate misrepresentation of the article it links to? Since a) nobody used the expression "moral defectives" or any equivalent in this case, and b) elective abortion is not something you call 911 for.
Can I assume that I am witnessing some ironic in-joke here, rather than a rare case of left-wing bigotry? Perhaps the answer lies in the picture, but it is unfamiliar.
"This was the hardest decision I ever made. The heinousness of a rape is a horrible thing. But I don't think you should punish a child for the sins of the father."
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess this person is a Christian. You know, a believer in the religion that blames all of us for the sins of Adam and Eve.
Eveyr single one of those people should be taken out in the street, shackled to a post in the sun, and left to die. Pedestrians should be encouraged to throw things at them.
I cannot state this more clearly: If you cannot do your job because your religion forbids the performance thereof, you need to find another religion or another job.
The Washington Post is completely failing to get the point. The fertility doctor who only treats married couples with their own reproductive cells? Fine. He's working for his patients, and he can always refuse to work for someone.
An ambulance driver? Working for a hospital. They say to drive a person from point A to point B, you do it. It's not as if Ms. Adamson was asked to perform the abortion herself. She doesn't have standing to complain about being asked to do her job unless driving is against her moral code.
She wasn't fired because of religious discrimination, she was fired for not doing her job.
An ambulance driver can be called to transport a patient for an elective abortion in many instances. One that immediately springs to mind is that the child was either threatening the mother's life or another health problem was discovered that would have prevented carrying the child to term - the mother can elect to abort, or elect to try birthing it anyway. She did not call 9-1-1. The story states that she was being transported from one hospital to another, which is not something they usually let patients do themselves in bad medical situations.
Dear Religious Types in the Health Care Professions:
I don't give a royal flying fuck WHAT you believe. Either do your job and see to it that my legally prescribed medications are filled, my legally protected procedures are performed properly and WITHOUT the intrusion of your religion on my right to the health care I pay so dearly for, or I will see to it that you lose your job AND - if you inconvenience me enough or hurt me through your unwillingness to do the fucking job you signed up for - everything else you hold dear through the glories of the US Courts.
#1: According to the Chicago Sun-Times, this woman was forced to go to the emergency room rather than the abortion clinic by the delay. The refusal to do her job put the patient at risk. And you don't dispatch an ambulance for an uncomplicated elective abortion, you take a taxi. The ambulance was dispatched to take the patient from one hospital to another.
#2: "moral defectives" is not a direct quote, but rather an indication that the phrase is an incorrect representation of the person wanting an abortion.
But you're right, it does appear that it's a quote from the article, when it isn't. Let me fix that.
Yeah, that was another gem about that comment. Then again, there are plenty of Christians that exclusively blame Eve for the fall from Eden. My wife was once told "I forgive you for getting us kicked out of Eden" (or something along those lines) completely unsolicited by a patient at her place of empploy.
But the Post is making this about the wrong issue. It's treating all "I consult my religion before doing my job" cases equally, and that is not accurate.
One of the most disturbing things in that article is the quotes from the doctor who refuses to work on patients who have elective sterilizations. How in the hell is that relevant to anything regarding the pro-life movement?
That's upping the stakes in the loony lottery considerably. We've gone from "abortion is wrong because life begins at conception" to "birth control is wrong because life begins in the egg" to "voluntary sterilization is wrong because life begins at the moment the child's mother goes through puberty".
Also, the quote from the guy who denied the morning after pill to the rape victim? "I don't think you should punish a child for the sins of the father." Clearly, he thinks that you should punish the mother for them.
Huh. The way it was portrayed in the Washington Post, I got the impression that the hospital had dispatched an emergency vehicle for a routine abortion, which certainly would be a pretty good reason to call one's boss and Just Say No. A deliberate provocation of the driver, an excuse to get her fired, this would be a natural testing case for religious discrimination. If it was an actual emergency, the lawsuit seems a total waste of money. Not to mention that it would be dishonorly.
I'm pretty sure that the fertility specialist who is upfront about only wanting to treat married patients with their own sperm and eggs is fine, actually.
It certainly avoids all that moral/ethical doubletalk that surrounds fertilized embryos from normative fertility clinics.
What's so wrong with his stance? Generally, I agree with your last statement, but if it isn't an emergency (and I hope you don't think "we need to have a baby" is an emergency) then nobody is really getting hurt.
Morning-after pill and a rape victim? Yeah, that example suits your response.
Especially strict Catholics feel that sterilization is wrong. A doctor that decides beforehand not to do elective sterilizations (and it's noteworthy that the article specified elective) on those grounds isn't "loony."
The Post just did a hash job of throwing a bunch of examples out there, apparently for the purpose of eliciting sympathy (based on the article's tone) but failed the people from the examples in the article that weren't nuts by lumping them in with the others.
In real life, we accomodate religious expression in a lot of jobs. For instance in a shop or factory, a Jewish worker may require to have every Saturday off, whereas a Muslim may similarly want to be off on Friday and a Catholic on Sunday. To fire perfectly good workers because of this would be a waste of resources. In the same way, a lot of hospitals simply let pro-lifers empty the bed pans instead of assisting with abortions. At least around here where workers are scarce.
I got the impression that the hospital had dispatched an emergency vehicle for a routine abortion, which certainly would be a pretty good reason to call one's boss and Just Say No.
And if you Just Say No to Doing Your Fucking Job, then that boss has every right to Fire Your Stupid Ass.
Ambulance personnel, when given a direct order, should not turn around and refuse because a flawed book written by a fictitious invisible man-god in the sky told them not to, and not expect professional repurcussions.
Sorry, but by definition: If you believe in God you are a fucking Loony. You believe in an invisible being that somehow has omnipotent, omniscient and all-encompassing powers who rules over us.
If you vehemently insist that The Easter Bunny is real, people eventually lock you up.
If you vehemently insist God is real, people agree with you.
Magnus, there's a HUGE difference between making reasonable accomodation for an employee to practice his religion (like giving him holy days off) and allowing your employee to potentially endanger the health and lives of others in an effort to force them to conform to his religious beliefs.
No, I'm sorry, I don't think there can be such a thing as "compromise" when you're in the health care professions. You KNOW EXPLICITLY what will be asked of you when you get into these fields. If you find these duties that you are explicity signing up for to be in conflict with your brand of morality, it is incumbent upon YOU to find another profession, not incumbent upon the patients to make you feel better about their health care.
I don't care if my pharmacist thinks use of Seasonale = murder of pre-babies. What I care about is my pharmacist handing over my legally prescribed medication and leaving his religion out of my personal medical business.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:21 pm (UTC)Can I assume that I am witnessing some ironic in-joke here, rather than a rare case of left-wing bigotry? Perhaps the answer lies in the picture, but it is unfamiliar.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:22 pm (UTC)I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess this person is a Christian. You know, a believer in the religion that blames all of us for the sins of Adam and Eve.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:25 pm (UTC)I cannot state this more clearly: If you cannot do your job because your religion forbids the performance thereof, you need to find another religion or another job.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:27 pm (UTC)An ambulance driver? Working for a hospital. They say to drive a person from point A to point B, you do it. It's not as if Ms. Adamson was asked to perform the abortion herself. She doesn't have standing to complain about being asked to do her job unless driving is against her moral code.
She wasn't fired because of religious discrimination, she was fired for not doing her job.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:31 pm (UTC)I don't give a royal flying fuck WHAT you believe. Either do your job and see to it that my legally prescribed medications are filled, my legally protected procedures are performed properly and WITHOUT the intrusion of your religion on my right to the health care I pay so dearly for, or I will see to it that you lose your job AND - if you inconvenience me enough or hurt me through your unwillingness to do the fucking job you signed up for - everything else you hold dear through the glories of the US Courts.
-- Pissed Off Patient
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:38 pm (UTC)I think I'm going to go find Zidane and take headbutting lessons from him.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:42 pm (UTC)#2: "moral defectives" is not a direct quote, but rather an indication that the phrase is an incorrect representation of the person wanting an abortion.
But you're right, it does appear that it's a quote from the article, when it isn't. Let me fix that.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:00 pm (UTC)But the Post is making this about the wrong issue. It's treating all "I consult my religion before doing my job" cases equally, and that is not accurate.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:06 pm (UTC)That's upping the stakes in the loony lottery considerably. We've gone from "abortion is wrong because life begins at conception" to "birth control is wrong because life begins in the egg" to "voluntary sterilization is wrong because life begins at the moment the child's mother goes through puberty".
Also, the quote from the guy who denied the morning after pill to the rape victim? "I don't think you should punish a child for the sins of the father." Clearly, he thinks that you should punish the mother for them.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:13 pm (UTC)It certainly avoids all that moral/ethical doubletalk that surrounds fertilized embryos from normative fertility clinics.
What's so wrong with his stance? Generally, I agree with your last statement, but if it isn't an emergency (and I hope you don't think "we need to have a baby" is an emergency) then nobody is really getting hurt.
Morning-after pill and a rape victim? Yeah, that example suits your response.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:16 pm (UTC)The Post just did a hash job of throwing a bunch of examples out there, apparently for the purpose of eliciting sympathy (based on the article's tone) but failed the people from the examples in the article that weren't nuts by lumping them in with the others.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:40 pm (UTC)Compromise makes the world go round.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 08:22 pm (UTC)And if you Just Say No to Doing Your Fucking Job, then that boss has every right to Fire Your Stupid Ass.
Ambulance personnel, when given a direct order, should not turn around and refuse because a flawed book written by a fictitious invisible man-god in the sky told them not to, and not expect professional repurcussions.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 08:26 pm (UTC)If you vehemently insist that The Easter Bunny is real, people eventually lock you up.
If you vehemently insist God is real, people agree with you.
ALL the people in that article were nuts.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 08:45 pm (UTC)This needs to be in 32 point boldface flaming text.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 08:54 pm (UTC)No, I'm sorry, I don't think there can be such a thing as "compromise" when you're in the health care professions. You KNOW EXPLICITLY what will be asked of you when you get into these fields. If you find these duties that you are explicity signing up for to be in conflict with your brand of morality, it is incumbent upon YOU to find another profession, not incumbent upon the patients to make you feel better about their health care.
I don't care if my pharmacist thinks use of Seasonale = murder of pre-babies. What I care about is my pharmacist handing over my legally prescribed medication and leaving his religion out of my personal medical business.