I was going to rant a lot more. tl;dr Bullshit
I was going to rant a lot more. tl;dr Bullshit
1) Dear media and journalists and everybody else - Stop being complicit in this sick twisting of the phrase "religious freedom". This is NOT what it means. It has never been what it means. Stop actively validating it by using it the way they want it used. For example, try "Religious Dogma Counts First" with this article.
2) "America's doctors and nurses are dedicated to saving lives," he says. "And they shouldn't be bullied out of the practice of medicine simply because they object to performing abortions against their conscience."
Bullshit. Not one single health care provider has been "bullied" out of medicine for not performing abortions. And their practice damn well should be restricted if they refuse to provide appropriate, valid medical care (see: emergencies in pregnancy, only available hospital has staff who think it's 1950, guess what happened to the women).
But Severino says it's equally alarming that doctors or nurses would be forced to violate their conscience to keep their jobs. He says since he arrived at HHS and made it clear he was open to listening to complaints of conscience, his office has received more of these complaints than were filed in all the Obama years combined.
a) Bullshit. First of all, nobody has been forced to do anything. They made a choice. Hell, most medical schools and residencies stopped teaching anything resembling an abortion years ago because of this "conscience" garbage. Not to mention any medical trainee who feels their poor little conscience is violated is actually permitted to refuse to learn certain medically legitimate things per the same. That's gonna be great when they have to take care of someone but they don't know what to do.
Also, employers are very clear about what the jobs entail. It's disingenuous crap when people claim they didn't know and decide at usually super inopportune moments to not take care of a patient. Or even better, do something, and then claim they were forced to, as opposed to they chose to because they didn't want to speak up.
If it's so darn important to them they can state it up front when interviewing and if the employer says, hey, we need to hire someone who will do this, as in, it's the job we're hiring for, then instead of filing a lawsuit about discrimination because their religious conscience, or whatever, go find a job that doesn't need someone who can do that. If you will not do the job, you are not qualified. That is not discrimination, you made a choice.
Further, we don't live in a theocracy. We provide medical care to everybody who shows up, no religious conscience test required. We do take into account the patient's religious concerns. Such as not giving blood products to Jehovah's Witnesses, or making sure there are only female doctors and nurses when an extremely conservative Muslim woman has her baby (yeah, that's a real thing that happened). But it is about the patient, NOT about the provider.
If your conscience is so delicate that you can't even push a key on a computer to send a prescription because it violates your religion, you should not be a medical provider.
b) Observer bias much? You advertised that you wouldn't laugh these people out of town and they came running. Heck, you had engraved invitations printed and sent out. Of course they are complaining. You told them they could. (I'd be fascinated to know how many of these complaints were filed under Clinton and Bush.)
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/20/591833000/civil-rights-chief-at-hhs-defends-the-right-to-refuse-care-on-religious-grounds?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180320
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/20/591833000/civil-rights-chief-at-hhs-defends-the-right-to-refuse-care-on-religious-grounds?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180320
1) Dear media and journalists and everybody else - Stop being complicit in this sick twisting of the phrase "religious freedom". This is NOT what it means. It has never been what it means. Stop actively validating it by using it the way they want it used. For example, try "Religious Dogma Counts First" with this article.
2) "America's doctors and nurses are dedicated to saving lives," he says. "And they shouldn't be bullied out of the practice of medicine simply because they object to performing abortions against their conscience."
Bullshit. Not one single health care provider has been "bullied" out of medicine for not performing abortions. And their practice damn well should be restricted if they refuse to provide appropriate, valid medical care (see: emergencies in pregnancy, only available hospital has staff who think it's 1950, guess what happened to the women).
But Severino says it's equally alarming that doctors or nurses would be forced to violate their conscience to keep their jobs. He says since he arrived at HHS and made it clear he was open to listening to complaints of conscience, his office has received more of these complaints than were filed in all the Obama years combined.
a) Bullshit. First of all, nobody has been forced to do anything. They made a choice. Hell, most medical schools and residencies stopped teaching anything resembling an abortion years ago because of this "conscience" garbage. Not to mention any medical trainee who feels their poor little conscience is violated is actually permitted to refuse to learn certain medically legitimate things per the same. That's gonna be great when they have to take care of someone but they don't know what to do.
Also, employers are very clear about what the jobs entail. It's disingenuous crap when people claim they didn't know and decide at usually super inopportune moments to not take care of a patient. Or even better, do something, and then claim they were forced to, as opposed to they chose to because they didn't want to speak up.
If it's so darn important to them they can state it up front when interviewing and if the employer says, hey, we need to hire someone who will do this, as in, it's the job we're hiring for, then instead of filing a lawsuit about discrimination because their religious conscience, or whatever, go find a job that doesn't need someone who can do that. If you will not do the job, you are not qualified. That is not discrimination, you made a choice.
Further, we don't live in a theocracy. We provide medical care to everybody who shows up, no religious conscience test required. We do take into account the patient's religious concerns. Such as not giving blood products to Jehovah's Witnesses, or making sure there are only female doctors and nurses when an extremely conservative Muslim woman has her baby (yeah, that's a real thing that happened). But it is about the patient, NOT about the provider.
If your conscience is so delicate that you can't even push a key on a computer to send a prescription because it violates your religion, you should not be a medical provider.
b) Observer bias much? You advertised that you wouldn't laugh these people out of town and they came running. Heck, you had engraved invitations printed and sent out. Of course they are complaining. You told them they could. (I'd be fascinated to know how many of these complaints were filed under Clinton and Bush.)
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/20/591833000/civil-rights-chief-at-hhs-defends-the-right-to-refuse-care-on-religious-grounds?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180320
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/20/591833000/civil-rights-chief-at-hhs-defends-the-right-to-refuse-care-on-religious-grounds?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180320
Comments
Post a Comment