If your religious convictions could prevent you from performing

some of the duties of your profession, then you need to either find a new profession or find a new religion.

I just heard Howard Fineman on Tweety say that Candidate Martha Coakley's use of words similar to mine above were insensitive to the religious conflict encountered by medical professionals. I disagree.

Insensitive my a$$! Insensitive is refusing to prescribe or administer birth control to a rape victim because it's against your religious convictions. Insensitive is stopping stem cell research to find cures for debilitating diseases because it's against your religious convictions. To me, it seems that everything that could benefit humankind is against some YAHOO'S religion.

The way I see it, professional people have a choice: they can either fulfill the requirements of their profession regardless of their religious beliefs, OR they can find a new profession that doesn't involve religious conflict. These YAHOOS CHOOSE to stay/work in a profession in which their religious convictions and faith is tested several times a day.

Oh, and, "Go, Martha!"

:grr:

n/t

Don't put yourself in a position where you will force your beliefs on others. It's very simple

their Happy Meal order is an evil act.

because of one's theology.

it goes both ways, you see.

I had to change the channel before I started throwing stuff at the TV. Howard (and Tweety) is totally off the deep end on that one.

:nuke:

have a problem with that. I guess the discussion you referr to was about someone in the ER. I never knew an abortion was part of a procedure that would be needed in an ER, but if it is, that DR/Nurse should be able to back away and let someone else take over.

I complained about medical professionals that refused to prescribe or administer medication to prevent pregnancy (even in cases of rape) because birth control violates their religious conscience.

My argument stands. If a medical professional won't prescrive or administer anything they have an abjection to, that's fine with me. Just turn the task over to someone else. NBD.

determining their occupation.

If they realized their religious conviction after they found their occupation then it was something that will not go away and they need to make a change.

If they believe the sun rotates around the earth they should stay the hell away from science related occupations.

But I just want to make sure, here. Are you saying Catholics shouldn't enter the medical profession?

many religions or sects that are against birth control, aren't there?

There may be many Catholics that secretly practice birth control in defiance of the Pope. Does this mean they love God any less than other Catholics? No, it only means that they know God loves them regardless of their family planning decisions.

I'm not saying Catholics or any other religion should be banned from the medical profession, but they should be ready to live and deal with the conflicts that their religious convictions will cause. If they can't live and deal with these conflicts without deferring to their religious beliefs, then they should find another profession.

Like maybe an Accountant or CPA. Information Technology. Engineer. Attorney. Help me out here, everybody.

And should not use it as an excuse. If they can't handle the parameters that should be used within a job then they should find a different line of work.

There is case law and precedents that help define things, but its still loose in many areas. Also its not just health care, its all jobs. It can be wanting to never working on Saturday (Sabbath) to not wanting to carry passengers with alcohol or dogs (taxi drivers), to not wanting to touch pork (supermarket clerks). In the case of health care, one can choose in which area they specialize in. Allergists rarely do elective abortions. OB-GYNs and their support staff (nurses...) are going to have that come up regularly. Avoiding the issue ahead of time is clearly the best course.

Abortions, non-therapeutic and otherwise are not done in the ER. If she wanted a more realistic example, she might look at the issue with sharia impaired muslims in UK hospitals who refused to scrub properly. It was a big deal a couple of years back.

get a new pharmacist or physician? Just saying.

a lot of choices of where to work. It goes both ways.

In both cases women lose.

Sorry, no sympathy for pharmacists who go to school, get licensed, THEN start getting squeamish about aspects of the job which are quite common.

Doctors, on the other hand, tend to have professional specialties.

Professionals have the opportunity to go to many areas to work. Many women, especially poor women, cannot go far to get care or prescriptions. NOT the same at all

and chooses not to stock Plan B? Before you say "of course" find another privately owned business type were certain inventory is required by the state.

They have required inventory set by the state in which they operate.

I am truly curious if there are any. I am in the "shall dispense or have it dispensed" camp, but I do not support "shall carry it".

WRT to ambulances, do the specify specific products or is it more general and generic. For example splints or a specific air splint?

They specify all the first line cardiac drugs for adults and pediatrics but not a specific brand.

Here are Georgia's minimum requirements for a Primary Rescue Vehicle. http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/266/1/15.PDF

In the US we view the provider conscience issue as elective abortion, which is not an emergency. However the morning after pill (Plan B)effectively is, which is more a pharmacist issue. There have been raging debates here and elsewhere about "shall carry" and "shall dispense". There does not seem to be a lot of middle ground.

You know what your job duties are going to be when you hire on. If you can't perform them because it makes you feel bad, then you need to find another job, and stay out of everyone else's face. People really need to understand that their religion does not control another's life.

Its a problem with much more than just medical personnel.

Disabilities Act or the 1973 federal voc rehab act requires reasonable accommodation to religious beliefs. They address physical disabilities like my Multiple Sclerosis and protected classes like race and gender. I do not think they address particular aspects of religion, simply that the work environment not be a hostile environment.

I worked for the IRS and they did accommodate to my disability so that I could do my job. I also functioned as an EEO counselor as a collateral duty for them. We received periodic training and instruction in how to handle employee complaints. Even accommodation to physical disabilities have limits. If you become too disabled to do your job and the employer cannot find another position where it is safe for you to function, you can be laid off. There was also a recent ruling regarding employees with seniority and how that was to be considered first before a job was offered to a less senior disabled person.

You can't leave dead rats on people's desks because they are of a particular religion, or verbally abuse them. That would be a hostile environment. The rights of other employees and the public have to be considered and balanced as well. For instance one employee's religion cannot dictate how other employees dress or speak unless they are violating a code of conduct set down by the employer and made clear to them at the time of hire. Unless you have a new and binding court decision you can link me to, nothing requires the employer to accommodate to a particular religion to the detriment of his business, other employees or customers. That was pretty much left up to him to define as long as it did not violate membership in a protected class as defined by law.

One thing people with MS know is reasonable accommodation. So if there is some federal law which violates the constitutional mandate of the separation of church and state, please link me to it so that I might enlighten myself. It might be what people of certain religions wish for, but as far as I know the employer still defines the duties and reasonable accommodations to a physical or emotional handicap within his ability to provide them. All accommodation is predicated on the fact that with assistance the employee can still perform the duties he was hired to perform without creating a problem for the employer. That was never the intention of the law. The law intended to integrate people with disabilities into the work force and to insure that members of closely defined protected classes not have their civil rights violated under the law.

And the rulings are all over the landscape. Some recent discussions has focused mostly on muslims. A grocery store checker that refused to handle pork products, even wrapped with her wearing gloves was a memorable one. Conscience exceptions for medical workers is an ongoing one as well.

Google "religious accommodation religion" several of the references discuss the concept and how it is applied.

Recently I read of a court decision where a state had forbidden its muslim female workers in the DMV to wear their head coverings. Making allowances for religious practice is not the same as saying that a worker has a right to refuse to fulfill his job duties because he feels that his religion forbids them.

One example. I worked for a company which liked to have a big Halloween party for the workers to let off steam. Everyone dressed up and the company fed us lunch. There were four or five fundamentalist Christians who identified Halloween with demon worship and objected. The company told them they could leave the area and not participate or quit. The parties would continue.

The government offices and many private employers allowance made for holidays like Good Friday which are unique to Christianity. Employers, even the government will let you take that afternoon if you arrange your leave well in advance. You do not however, get paid for it. The Jewish holidays are noted in the same way. You take the day off without penalty, but without pay. They justify Christmas by stating that it is a federal holiday and the offices will not be open. Thanksgiving is not considered to be a religious holiday but is still a federal holiday as is New Year's day. Holidays for the Orthodox faith are treated the same way. Time off by prearrangement but no pay. That is considered religious accommodation.

Your Muslim worker who refused to handle pork really affected no one but herself, as she was not placing herself between a doctor and a patient following medical advice. There was someone else there to wrap the pork and it denied no one else their basic rights. No one had to have that particular employee wrap pork.

What I was referring to when I was discussing a pharmacist or pharmacy clerk refusing to serve the needs of a customer attempting to fill a prescription for contraceptives or morning after pills is different and has not been ruled on to my knowledge. Walgreens was one pharmacy who allowed the pharmacist to choose his duties, but no law required them to do so and I don't think it would. I would like to see a court case so that once and for all, no one can decide for another what medicine or course of medical advice they have to follow. As the slogan here at DU says, this is my country not your church.

and several laws banning them WRT Plan B. Not sure what the box score is today.

The pharmacist is really the bubble job in this area. He can only dispense what doctors order or is otherwise allowed by law, presuming they have it in stock. I have not heard of a pharmacist refusing to dispense BC pills recently, but did see it in my long ago misspent youth. The more interesting situation would be a privately owned pharmacy, which can choose what drugs they carry, and some have chosen not to carry Plan B.

posting about. I am not up on Plan B which I presume is the morning after pill or the pill that can induce early term abortions. Years ago I had to have a complete Hysterectomy due to a large and as it turned out, precancerous tumor. So my days of reproductive concerns were effectively truncated. I read about it in passing, and I knew it would be a hot button issue to the point where many doctors chose to dispense it in their offices so that the patients would not encounter the type of crap they have had to encounter.

The thing that I had experience with was a medication for my mother. I copied from my post down thread because it is long, and I have MS and it is the end of the day when the fatigue is kind of monstrous. If you already read the post, please excuse me. But if you didn't here was my experience with a medication which had nothing to do with reproductive rights, but simply with maintaining my elderly mother's ability to eat enough to sustain herself.

"I had an experience when I was providing care for my mother as she was dying of congestive heart failure. Then it was an imposition of what various pharmaceutical chains considered to be a "moral" imperative more than a religious one.

My mother, like a lot of frail elderly people was having difficulty eating. She was nauseous and in pain a lot of the time and losing weight fast. Her doctor prescribed a new medication which was made up of the active ingredients of marijuana. A month's supply cost $200. My husband and I were on for it since she didn't have any type of prescription coverage with her medicare. We didn't mind though. We were fighting to keep her alive and comfortable.

We took the doctor's prescription to Sav-On, Walgreens, and Rite-Aid (now CVS). They all said that they did not carry the medication because it was "like" marijuana. We searched all over creation and finally found a small pharmacy in a nearby medical building which would sell it to us. We had to sign, rosters, consents, all kinds of paperwork. They did everything but fingerprint us. But we got my Mom her meds and gave them to her as directed by her doctor, in conjunction with her meals.

It actually worked very well for her. I didn't notice any alteration of her moods, but she began to enjoy her food and look forward to her meals again and ask us to cook special things for her. When she had gained some weight the doctor carefully withdrew the medication and my Mom continued to prosper. That was just as well because we found out from the pharmacy which sold it to us that the manufacturer had stopped making it because they could not find any outlets to sell it.

That left a whole group of vulnerable people who suffered from wasting diseases like HIV and Cancer without anything to help them with eating as well as this had. I am so fed up with other people deciding for me or anyone else what I can and cannot do based on their morality and their religion or simply what they think is "best" for me. I am perfectly capable of deciding things for myself. It has got to stop. I don't think anyone wants someone elses values imposed on them."

There were a number of small family pharmacies which refused to sell this medication. The one which did was run by a family with aging parents which had compassion for my mother's situation and ordered her medication for us without additional cost. It was legal, it was prescribed, it was not abused but it was still withheld by a bunch of foolish people who were determined to do the "right thing" for all of us. Even though it wasn't their decision to make. It was between my mother and her doctor.

Contrast that with the eagerness of the pharmacies to sell me a pain control patch which dispensed Fentynal transdermally for the chronic, almost constant pain I have with my MS. I read about it online before I bought it, which has become my habit. I like to make sure that the benefit outweighs the detriment of the side effects. The manufacturer described how to apply the patch and said to be sure to keep your fingers out of "the poison" which is how they described the Fentynal, their own product. I passed on that one. Ironically it was very easy to get.

Many older pharmacists didn't know what would be required of them in regards to these medications.

I understand that new drugs come on the market all the time, but oral contraceptives have been around since the 60s and high doses of hormones which have been given as "morning after" pills have been around since the 70s. So it is not unknown to a pharmacist or the pharmacist's clerk that there would be a requirement to dispense them. The doctor who prescribes the drug, not the pharmacist determines the necessity. Suppose you had a pharmacist or clerk who belonged to a religion which believed that there should be no medical intervention in cases of illness? Do they have the right by virtue of what they believe to deny antibiotics or other medications which use medical science to treat illness? And if you were on the other end of a potentially serious problem like bronchitis would you want them to dictate your treatment, or would you prefer a doctor?

It may seem extreme, but when we start giving away little pieces of our lives to cater to people with religious beliefs different than ours we are giving away our sovereignty to have or own religion or a life without it if we desire.

I'm a Quaker. We are not evangelical for many reasons, but one of our core values is to live a life of simplicity and humility. We do not amass material goods for their own sake or buy lavish and showy items to impress others. So if I were evangelical and you wanted to buy a shiny red car, would you like it if I could keep a car dealer from selling you one and hand you a bus pass instead? It may seem like a ludicrous comparison, but I think letting someone else control a woman's reproductive life by cutting off her access to contraceptives or morning after pills is ludicrous too. Not to mention specious and harmful. That goes for abortion too, but you don't usually get those in a pharmacy and that is the example I am basing this on.

If they did no one would ever hire them. It truly would be a Constitutional issue. I'm sure we are all aware of how it would be decided.

Which is at its essence is perceived as abortion by some. Those are indeed new drugs and pose a conscience problem for some pharmacists. Those who work in the various chains its settled. The stores carry it and they will dispense or have someone else in the pharmacy do it. Failure to do so means getting fired unless there are laws in that state protecting them. The more subtle issue is if its a stand alone pharmacy and the owner chooses not to carry Plan B. Can they be forced to etc.

IIRC, the local pharmacy where I grew up refused to dispense BC pills to single women. It was owned by the pharmacist who simply refused to dispense them. He was at least 60 when I was in Jr Hi, it was before Roe v Wade, it was a long time ago.

Walgreens was one of the worst offenders. This was during the Bush era, and things may be different now. Here is a link to the National Womens Law Center which will bring you up to speed. http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=2185§ion=ReproductiveChoices

Medical personnel do apply their beliefs all the time. There are doctors who won't give abortions, which is their right given their oath and ethical concerns about life and when it begins. Some refuse for religious reasons. Again, a doctor has different concerns than a pharmacy and I can't really address them. I'm not a doctor.

I had an experience when I was providing care for my mother as she was dying of congestive heart failure. Then it was an imposition of what various pharmaceutical chains considered to be a "moral" imperative more than a religious one.

My mother, like a lot of frail elderly people was having difficulty eating. She was nauseous and in pain a lot of the time and losing weight fast. Her doctor prescribed a new medication which was made up of the active ingredients of marijuana. A month's supply cost $200. My husband and I were on for it since she didn't have any type of prescription coverage with her medicare. We didn't mind though. We were fighting to keep her alive and comfortable.

We took the doctor's prescription to Sav-On, Walgreens, and Rite-Aid (now CVS). They all said that they did not carry the medication because it was "like" marijuana. We searched all over creation and finally found a small pharmacy in a nearby medical building which would sell it to us. We had to sign, rosters, consents, all kinds of paperwork. They did everything but fingerprint us. But we got my Mom her meds and gave them to her as directed by her doctor, in conjunction with her meals.

It actually worked very well for her. I didn't notice any alteration of her moods, but she began to enjoy her food and look forward to her meals again and ask us to cook special things for her. When she had gained some weight the doctor carefully withdrew the medication and my Mom continued to prosper. That was just as well because we found out from the pharmacy which sold it to us that the manufacturer had stopped making it because they could not find any outlets to sell it.

That left a whole group of vulnerable people who suffered from wasting diseases like HIV and Cancer without anything to help them with eating as well as this had. I am so fed up with other people deciding for me or anyone else what I can and cannot do based on their morality and their religion or simply what they think is "best" for me. I am perfectly capable of deciding things for myself. It has got to stop. I don't think anyone wants someone elses values imposed on them.

yes it was. For the many other small family owned pharmacies it was not a corporate choice. It was their personal choice.

If you are asking in what area it was in Los Angeles where you would not think to find that much imposition of other people's morality. We are usually kind of loose that way here. People tend to be more interested in what they are doing themselves and not so worried about what other people are doing.

I am not trying to bash medical people, because I don't believe that they are a part of this problem or add to it significantly. My mother's doctor was a very special woman who dealt with many, many patients other doctors didn't want to bother with. We had many discussions about how the elderly are undertreated and mistreated in many ways. She hugged my mother and listened to her instead of talking over her head to me as if she were not in the room.

What I was trying to crystallize and define was the refusal of some individuals and the companies who employ them to simply do their jobs and not try to control other people's morality by denying them prescriptions or other medications legally prescribed for a specific circumstance or medical condition. I want women and others in need to be able to walk into a store and purchase a prescription without being harassed, hassled or intimidated because the seller has a particular bug up his butt about what he considers "moral" based on his own personal religion. It is not appropriate and it is not necessary and we are fools to endure it.

As for medical people, the only doctors I have a problem with are Neurologists. With MS I have seen a lot of them and I have not liked one of them. I think you have to have an arrogance there and an embedded idea that women are lesser beings before they let you select Neurology as your specialty. Of course that may be the effect of being on the receiving end of all those tests that are particularly unpleasant which evaluate MS, but that is my story and I'm sticking to it.:yoiks:

I think you will find that often those with a higher clinical intelligence have a lower level of social intelligence. That likely accounts for the bad bedside manner. Although I have known several that were very pleasant.

but I had such a thrill of unmitigated pleasure when the Neurologist administering my EMG had to press the needles down with his hand while he ran the machine in order to get a repeatable response.:evilgrin:

I didn't have pain sensation in my right arm at that time. Part of my MS checkerboard. But he did and when the test was over he left the room with a new and quite visceral appreciation of what he was putting the patients through when he ordered those tests. It was a good day. ;)

to do something that's against your religious convictions, then it should be your duty to God to find a new job/profession.

You may not like them all but you've always got choices.

I'm an administrative assistant. I type documents, make Powerpoint presentations, etc. Let's say I join a religion that's down on typing. Or, the religion that I have practiced for years suddenly bans typing. How long should my employer keep me around if I can't do an important part of my job?

I believe we all know how the case would be decided.

doesn't/shouldn't entitle to a particular type of job/profession.

I don't agree with the way that is interpreted in some cases, but it is there in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964

because of their religious beliefs may jeopardize my ability to get the medical care/treatment that I want.

How much should I be inconvenienced so that the medical professionals can feel good about what they do?

To translate that into another venue, if you want a Big Mac, the local vegetarian restaurant should make it for you even if it violates their ethics simply because you want it and the restaurant is more convenient for you than the McDonald's down the block. That is what you have in effect said. You may want to rethink that position.

The vast majority of medical care is elective at some level. Similar procedures can be therapeutic or purely elective, depending on the circumstances. Currently there is no right to demand specific treatment from a specific provider (doctor, hospital, etc), especially for clearly elective procedures. In that kind of scenario, a patient's wants, desires, and convenience really don't matter. I don't see that changing any time soon.

My position is that my wants and needs are JUST as important to the wants and needs of others. Certainly, no one should resolve or handle their religious conflicts at my expense.

My position is also that it should not be MY problem if YOU have religious conflicts about performing your job. It is incumbent upon you to either get over your conflicts OR find a new profession.

In the general case, your position is that as the consumer your wants, desires, and convenience trump those of your supplier if theirs is based on a moral or ethical positions. I suggest you reconsider the vegetarian restaurant analogy and evaluate what that would do to the rest of society is applied broadly.

Again in the general case, the merchandise/products are what the business owner decides to offer for sale. That includes doctors and pharmacists. If they choose not to offer what you want, what mechanism would you suggest to compel them? It other words, what makes it their jobs? Alternatively it could be stated that if they supply all the products and services they commit to, that they are doing their jobs even if it does not meet your needs.

In the specific would you insist that a vegetarian restaurant serve meat because its "their job" and its not right that their beliefs impinge on your wants, desires, and convenience.

It would be the exclusion that would raise the Constitutional issues.

who is opposed to abortions and who doesn't want to perform them is within his or her rights to NOT perform an abortion if it is an elective abortion and not medically necessary for the life of the mother, or is not an emergency situation? 'Cause I don't. If it's not a medical emergency or medically necessary, then they have the right to not perform them.

All of this is aside from my OP. You asked and I'm telling you how I see things:

Doctors are service providers. They're very educated and well-trained (you hope), but you (or your health insurer) pay them to perform services for you to help yo stay healthy. Just as you pay the pizza delivery person to bring you a pizza, or just as you pay the roofer to put a new roof on your house.

But, if I'm a pizza delivery person and eating cheese is against my religion, or, if I'm a roofer and I can't stand the sun, well then, I should find gainful employment in some other job.

EVERYBODY HAS A CHOICE......even Doctors.

We don't do that with restaurants, why should be be acceptable to require that of MDs?
What if they state they are not insured or fell they are up to date on the procedure?
Why should a doctor be compelled to perform what is clearly an elective procedure?

Its not nearly as clear as some would have it.

trying to make. Using that logic, a doctor should be required to do any procedure at all, regardless of whether they're actually trained in it or knowledgeable in it. Medicine isn't one-size-fits-all, each doctor has their own specialty/sphere of knowledge and skills. And if it's an elective procedure and not medically necessary, then it shouldn't even be an issue as to whether ot not it should be required of them.

"Using that logic, a doctor should be required to do any procedure at all, regardless of whether they're actually trained in it or knowledgeable in it."

Oh, puh-leeeeeez. I never said they should perform procedures they've not been trained in. Who would be dumb enough to go to a urologist to have their broken leg set?

I'm pointing out that if you're religious convictions prevent you from doing your job, whatever your job is, then you either need a new religion or a new job. Point blank.

What you are saying is that those trained in elective procedure X during residency could be required to perform it upon patient request. Is that really where you want to go?

I know a couple of doctors who have opted out of procedures that they do not want to do by refusing to purchase insurance coverage for it. The list include non-therapeutic abortions and circumcision

I don't agree that all professions are such that one should be fired because their religion conflicts with parts of their job. In many cases that ought to be up to the person's boss. But when one receives a medical license from the state that license ought to come with not only rights but responsibilities as well and one of those responsibilities is to prescribe necessary treatments to patients.

The State has to respect the freedom of religion according to the Constitution. Of course there are always exceptions I don't know how this one would come out. Besides isn't the morning after pill OTC now.

Medical facilities/practitioners can not turn away someone who requires immediate/emergency treatment. Elective procedures are by definition not emergencies.

If you don't do what the boss requires (and its within bounds) you can be fired, but that is an employment issue, not a medical one.

Those "rights and responsibilities" appear to be largely dependent on contemporary social mores-- something which changes in many directions every generation or so.

A new Hippocratic Oath every 30 years or so...?

That's an ideology too.

KnR to the 1000th degree.

Should she be compelled to administer lethal injections upon penalty of losing her license? Or should she just ram that plunger home and go get herself a "new religion" instead? :shrug:

Although I'm largely sympathetic to your take on this, it's not as clear-cut as your OP indicates (as someone else in this thread has also noted).

why on earth would you apply for and accept a job in which one of the duties requires you to administer lethal injections?

If this is the case, then you are going out of your way to put yourself in the position of having a religious conflict. Your head should explode!

If your beliefs prevent you from performing some of the duties of your profession, you should find another profession or change your beliefs.

I just heard Howard Fineman on Tweety say that Candidate Martha Coakley's use of words similar to mine above were insensitive to the moral conflict encountered by conscientious objectors. I disagree.

Insensitive my a$$! Insensitive is refusing to deploy to a combat zone and making someone else go in your place because it's against your convictions. Insensitive is signing up for the paycheck and free tuition but not holding up your end of the bargain because it's against your convictions. To me, it seems that every reason a nation could go to war is against some YAHOO'S beliefs.

The way I see it, people have a choice: they can either fulfill the requirements of their enlistment regardless of their beliefs, OR they can find a new profession that doesn't conflict with their beliefs - or they can cool their heels in prison. These YAHOOS CHOOSE to enlist in a military in which their convictions and beliefs are tested several times a day.

Oh, and, "Go, Martha!"

:grr:

secular conviction, need apply!

the police would not take female victims to Catholic hospitals because they would not offer emergency contraception. So someone who is against contraception and abortion could be a health care professional in that context without compromising their personal religious beliefs.

Interestingly, the police did take male rape victims to Catholic hospitals, where they received compassionate care in the emergency room.

I do believe that if your religious convictions are strong enough to keep you from performing some of your duties that you should consider different employment.