News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
If doctors (or pharmacists) want the choice to impose their own religion on their patients, then at minimum need need to disclose that before ever meeting a patient. Additionally it would disqualify them from accepting any patients that are subsidized with taxpayer money.
This could act like the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of cigarettes:
WARNING: this physician acts with their own religion in mind before your well being. This could be a danger to your health.
I don't understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods -- shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever -- that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter's side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.
Doctors are held to a different standard because... the mental gymnastics say it's totally fine when it's a woman being denied service I guess?
If these healthcare "professionals" only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.
Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.
Don't get it either. I am sure it is quite possible to be a doctor and not be involved with abortion. I am an engineer and I have strong objections to working on military stuff, so I don't work for military contractors. Other ones don't so they do.
I'm going to try again (and you know, maybe I'm just wrong but here's what I'm seeing).
There are doctors in the medical field already, with specific beliefs that may be sexist but are not generally speaking, sexist people. There is also a shortage of doctors.
Do we really want to throw out an entire doctor (that takes years of training) because they don't want to do a particular procedure?
There is a secondary point of when is refusal to do a procedure sexism or religion vs genuine medical objection to the harms caused (in their medical opinion).
There is an additional point where I fundamentally think legal compulsion is a terrible tool in a free society and should be used as an absolute last resort.
When it comes down to something as sensitive as medicine, I'd rather my doctor be on board or I find a different doctor vs my doctor being compelled to do something they don't believe in or outright having no doctor to go to because ... there aren't enough.
There's also the possibility (and it seems like in the video) that the Roe v Wade issue is also making this doctor far more skiddish even in New York State. We really haven't heard his side and that really is an important perspective.
Surely there's somebody else this woman could see as well? There's no way this guy is the only one that knows about these medications and maybe another doctor would like to use a different medication anyways. There are plenty of other cases of doctors saying "you're fine" to people regardless of gender or sex and them needing to see a different doctor before getting the right treatment.
I originally went after your analogy because it's so beyond comparison. You might as well make an analogy between a rocket scientist and a scientologist. There are so many layers of nuance here. Driving politics into medical decisions is part of how we got here ... is adding more complex "do I need a lawyer (to do what I believe is the best practice)" to a doctor's practice really a good idea?
That presumably kind of worked for racism but I still can't imagine the truly racist doctors were giving their best service; like we didn't just say "you must see black patients or leave medicine" and then the problems were fixed. There are plenty of black people alive today that still distrust the institution of medicine -- including my neighbor who refused to get vaccinated because he doesn't trust doctors -- because of what's been done in the past.
Analogies are tools to assist understanding, and having opposition debate the analogies themselves instead of the actual points they're used to make is a sign of a weak rebuttal.
So let's ignore all the haggling over the analogy and bring it back to the broader point: People should not be in jobs which their personal beliefs prevent doing significant or important aspects of. And equality between genders is objectively an important aspect of health care. These "professionals" should not be in the health care field at all, save perhaps male-focused care fields like prostate or testicular health.
No, they should have their medical license revoked. Doctors have to swear an oath to not intentionally or knowingly harm a patient for a reason, because their well being is their top priority. If they can't adhere to that oath because of arbitrary religious/philosophical/political/whatever beliefs, then they have no business being a medical professional.
deleted by creator
Your word salad is confusing.
Based on what I've read in r/childfree, it's far more common than not for doctors to prioritize the needs of a hypothetical husband or fetus over those of a real live woman. I've also known someone in real life who couldn't get a painful medical condition fixed until her mid 30s because the treatment caused sterility. The problem goes way beyond religion; it's more a matter of institutional sexism and the hubris of doctors thinking they know better than any woman who says she doesn't want kids.
I've been to several different OBs trying to solve my almost-two-year-long-period and every single one of them refuses to do anything for me. I'm just "too young" for them to stop me from having kids one day. And giving me a hysterectomy is "too dangerous" and "risky" when my life isn't in danger. It doesn't matter that I've tried everything they suggest. Try it again!! It's so fucking tiring.
I've just given up paying the constant doctor fees to see asshole doctors anymore and just figure I'll either stop having the problem eventually or I'll be "old enough" (40 maybe?) to finally get surgery... It's all a nightmare, especially in the religious south...
Also, if she wanted to do it, adoptions are always needed.
Or, and hear me out, don't let them deny medical care based on their religion.
You'd have to prove it was purely religion and not their "genuine medical opinion".
The people refusing are openly stating that it is because of their religious beliefs. If they try to hide it then it will become apparent very quickly when their opinion always ends up with something other than the thing they oppose.
It is so easy to lie about your intentions and hide it behind legit sounding excuses, like "but you could have a child one day".
Medical review boards.
Claiming this is due to religion isn't accurate. This happens all the time due to plain old misogyny. Women have a tough time getting proper medical treatment at all, not just when it overlaps with religious fruitcakes.
How does anyone even become a doctor and still hold onto religion?
"Maybe -I'M- god?"
The human mind is something else. I work with so many skydaddy fearing engineers. Utterly freaken brilliant people without which civilization ends in fire and feces.
I was struggling with Biology for my associates degree back in 2007. I happened to teach Tae Kwon Do to the daughter of one of the state university Biology professors (I was only in community College at the time) and I asked the mom to tutor me.
And goddamn. As smart as she was regarding Biology, she bought into Christianity hook, line, and sinker (her husband was a pastor).
I like that. Makes it a lot easier to vote with your wallet.
Except it doesn;t. Right now, roughly 20% of all hospitals in the US are owned by a religion; most are Catholic, and about 1/4 of them are 'some other religion'. That is up from 12% is 1995. What that means is that, in many cases--especially when it's an emergency--you won't have any choice at all except to accept religion-tainted healthcare.
I've lived in places where the only option covered by my insurance was religions.
IMO that's more of an insurance issue and a fair competition issue.
It's becoming a religion issue as Catholic groups take over more and more hospitals, because they're going to eliminate health care for things that are against their religious principles.
IMO healthcare should not be permitted to have religion interfering.
Hmm... yeah or at least, maybe not be permitted to set policy for an entire hospital?
We could start our own list. When I say "we" I mean someone else, because I'm both not smart enough to build that, and not in the right place in the world.