Moral Objection = WTF.

[Deciare]

There is no basic contradiction between the Hippocratic Oath and God's Commandment that "Thou shall not kill". In both cases, the medical practitioner is to avoid doing harm to a patient, a child, or to others involved.

A contradiction can arise from one's definition of exactly what constitutes as harm, or more harm, however.

Is it more harmful to dispose of an unborn embryo than it is to potentially bring lifelong financial and emotional hardship to a woman who became pregnant by accident? A doctor who adheres to the letter of "Thou shall not kill" may be more concerned with immediate consequences due to his personal method of adhering to an aspect of an oath he'd taken. That wouldn't make his decision any less disturbing to someone who would rather follow the general guideline that harm shall not be done.

Is it less harmful to deny a same-sex couple an opportunity to raise a child on moral grounds than it is to grant an orphaned child an opportunity to have a loving family? An official who strongly believes that only married couples are fit to have a child may somehow believe that the child would be at direct risk by associating with parents involved in a same-sex relationship. And maybe they'd be right--what about the psychological side-effects of being outcast by other children and adults who become aware of the status of the child's parents? On the other hand, no child deserves a chance to grow up in a loving family any less than any other child. If only gay or lesbian parents have said that they wish to adopt a particular child, then why not?

Since perspective can affect the severity and priority of the morals involved, there's no single answer to the question of who deserves "special rights". Having to get a second opinion isn't always fair or viable, but it does deserve credit for taking the concerns of both parties into consideration.

With that said, there are doctors who are afraid to perform abortions, or afraid of advertising that specialty even if they do perform abortions, for fear that they'll be struck down by people who morally object to their practice. I believe it's the people who can offer a second opinion who need to be protected from those who subscribe to the first opinion.  

[SchizoSpazz]

yeah. it's ridiculous. i guess i was suprised here that our pharmacist is either so easygoing, and if he doesn't agree with the birth control or plan b in itself, at least we're the ones who will hold the punishment of our sins (if he thinks that), or he's just kissing butt because he's the only pharmacist in town, but that won't stop people from looking for what they want elsewhere. But I heard that there are doctors and pharmacists out there who really won't. which is stupid.
And i feel that as long as either the parent is stable enough to raise a child, or the couple is in agreement with how the chld will be raised in a loving home, marital or orientation status shouldn't matter. but i've heard all over this place that they should not be allowed because it will confuse the children or turn them gay. WTF?! I always remember this one story in Florida where a couple of little girls in foster care went to a gay couple, and when they tried to take the girls away, a psychiatrist stepped in and said 'if you do, the girls will be scarred for life and won't be able to trust anybody'  

[TheFreeSoul]

A gynecologist refuses to prescribe birth control pills.

Randomly chose that one.

If the women could substain or be affected by horrible side effects due to let's say a birth defect or genetics or something that became a problem after birth. Let's say do to a certain situation.

It makes perfect medical sense for the Gynecologist to refuse. It could put the patient in danger and it could also cause the Gynecologist to get fired or sued for malpractice. That being said this one can also in a lot of situations be more a logical decision v.s. a moral objection.

If someone wanted viagra but it had a high chance of giving them a heart attack for some reason, the doctor should not prescribe it. Not because of a moral objection but because it's dangerous to the patient. If doctor's are supposed to promote good health care, giving someone something that could potentially harm them and has a high chance of doing so is in fact wrong and opposite of the point of medicine.

>;3 Thank god I don't need to see a Gynecologist..

Or DO I?!

HUH?!

...Wait no, defintely not.  

[Yuuki Aoyagi]

There Is No Such Thing as a “Right” to Healthcare
By Arnold Ahlert (bio)

"A lot of Americans are so used to calling something a “right” they never stop to consider what that really means. Such is the case currently with regard to health care. Do Americans actually have a “right” to health care? No, they don’t–not unless it’s coerced. What do I mean?

The leftist hacks in Washington D.C. are desperately trying to convince Americans that an entitlement is the same thing as a right. But it is not, especially in this case, because your right to healthcare requires someone else’s rights to be rendered subservient to yours. Who is that someone?

A doctor.

A lot of misguided Americans think that no matter how much the proposed legislation slip-sliding its way through Congress negatively impacts members of the medical profession, doctors will just suck it up and learn to live with whatever restrictions government imposes on them. These people think that any time they get sick, they can impose their “right” to health care on a member of the medical profession.

Really? Last time I checked, no one could force a doctor to perform his craft. Even more to the point, no one can force any individual to become a doctor.

Already, in response to outside forces, the behavior of many doctors has changed. Some of them have dropped certain high-risk specialties such as obstetrics or advanced neurological surgery, due to out-of-control litigation which has ballooned the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Others have refused to see patients enrolled in government programs due to the burden of dealing with massive amounts of paperwork, low reimbursement rates, and staggeringly slow payment schedules. Even more ominously, highly experienced doctors who might otherwise have remained in the profession are retiring because they’ve “had enough of the nonsense.”

And those are the people who are already doctors. What about those who look at the current climate, and decide becoming a doctor isn’t worth the headache of sky-high medical school costs, coupled with an overly-intrusive bureaucracy?

How meaningful is your “right” health if there is no one available to administer it?

Doctors, and those aspiring to the profession, are just like everyone else. They need incentive to perform their craft, and if they don’t get it, health care reform is meaningless.

Unless incentive is replaced by coercion.

Perhaps we are entering an age where government bureaucrats actually believe they can force doctors to do their bidding, no matter how onerous they make it. Perhaps they truly believe they can limit doctors pay, or force them to take a certain number of patients on Medicare and Medicaid.

Perhaps these socialist-driven thugs even think they can outlaw private practice altogether.

Don’t bet on it. And while you’re thinking about it, ask yourself this: how comfortable would you be lying on an operating table about to be cut open by a doctor forced to perform surgery?

A “right” to health care? A “right” to force someone else to do your bidding?

Laughable–in a free country. Are we still a free country?"

Something to think about?  

[Slade_Black]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Zat In The Hat]

This is why people travel to other countries for medical treatment. Because ours sucks. You can go to China for stem cells and treat a kids mental illness effectively. Unless there's a valid reason for being denied health care those doctors better do their job. If I'm ever caught in one of these situations chances are I will probably take legal action.