"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
10/31/2019 at 00:25 • Filed to: None
3
8|
"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
10/31/2019 at 00:25 • Filed to: None | 3
| 8 |
Recently, the state of Nuevo Leon, for all intents and purposes Mexico’s Texas and Alabama, passed a new law that allows doctors and nurses to decline treating their patients on religious, ethical or moral grounds. It is called objecion de conciencia and it’s also a law in Mexico City and Yucatan.
State medical staff can refuse service to lots of groups, most alarmingly illegal immigrants, indigenous people, LGBTII, and women.... This as long as their life is not in imminent danger.
The thing I have against these laws is that the Free and Sovereign State of Nuevo Leon is, officially, secular. By extension their services must also be secular.
Surely in some cases, because 8/10 mexicans are catholic, some institutions of government need to work next to religious groups in order to make society function. Say like having increased police presence near churches on Sunday, or allowing religious garments at school.
But these concessions the state makes for the sake of society elevate the rights of religious groups without necessarily diminishing those of minority groups.
So, those concessions are fine. What isn’t fine is for the state, through one of its institutions, to let their employees refuse treating people they don’t like. It is childish and very, very dangerous.
Think of a workplace... No one wants to deal with Janice in accounting, but you have to because it is part of working there; institutions aren’t there to advance individual points of view. No, they’re there to enforce the will of the state, which in this case is to provide healthcare to everyone because under their constitution they suppose equal rights.
So I find it moronic that the state would curtail its own power, and endanger their own citizens to protect a group of their employees on moral grounds. The fact of the matter is that healthcare is not cheap, it’s not like a doctor and a nurse are ready in the break room whenever their colleagues refuse to help patients. There is a very high chance that a transgender patient in need of healthcare might find themselves without a doctor to attend them at a clinic. Which is shameful.
The truth is that, if you have a moral objection to something that might be central to your job... maybe you can’t have that job.... The Amish can’t be airline pilots and devout muslims can’t be Bourbon tasters.
So it is ridiculous to expect the state, a steward of the will of the people, to make very specific, very costly, and dangerous exceptions just to appease you....
Could you say that you’re being discriminated based on your religion if your Dean asks you to perform an examination of a transgender women’s genitals?
I simply don’t think so, neither are your religious rights infringed when asked to perform an abortion... Your services as a state employee are not connected to your identity or beliefs as a person.
Because if doctors was to cure a criminal and, in better health, the criminal escaped we wouldn’t consider the doctor an accomplice. Which is why in an opposite case, where a doctor refused to cure a criminal, and that criminal died, the doctor would lose their license.
I’m not trying to argue religion or morality are a choice... But I just believe that in the case of a state enterprise, religion and morality don’t depend on them, and because of that their employees can’t have the right to refuse to do their job based on those principles.
They surrender their work to the state when they accepted the position. So perhaps when they get worried about their moral and religious rights they should consider “refusing” the post in a government institution to begin with.
Merfthemadmauler
> Spanfeller is a twat
10/31/2019 at 00:31 |
|
I couldn’t be a devout Muslim.
CB
> Spanfeller is a twat
10/31/2019 at 00:34 |
|
Doesn’t this go against the Hippocratic oath?
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> CB
10/31/2019 at 00:38 |
|
Lots of things go against the oath!
Thomas Donohue
> Spanfeller is a twat
10/31/2019 at 00:47 |
|
I spy a Boxster.
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> Thomas Donohue
10/31/2019 at 00:49 |
|
Yes, it appears to be a base model
Svend
> Spanfeller is a twat
10/31/2019 at 06:57 |
|
One of the many reasons I hate religion.
It talks about bringing people together, love thy neighbour, respect them etc... then it says, except you, and you, and you, oh and you....
It’s divisive when people aren’t hiding behind the books for what they say and what they read into, it’s because someone is using it to hide their racism, sexism, etc... We’re all stuck on this planet, spinning through space, trying to get by and live our lives.
BigBlock440
> Spanfeller is a twat
10/31/2019 at 07:52 |
|
So I find it moronic that the state would curtail its own power, and endanger their own citizens
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
State medical staff can refuse service to lots of groups, most alarmingly illegal immigrants, indigenous people, LGBTII, and women.... This as long as their life is not in imminent danger.
How is it “endangering their own citizens”? You said as long as it doesn’t endanger them...
neither are your religious rights infringed when asked to perform an abortion... Your services as a state employee are not connected to your identity or beliefs as a person.
Just like your religious rights wouldn’t be infringed if the higher ups at A uschwitz assigned you to turn on the gas, you’re just doing your state sanctioned job as a state employee. Sure, a handful of Jews died at your hand, but you can sleep soundly at night knowing that since it was state sanctioned, you’re still living up to your religious values.
The truth is that, if you have a moral objection to something that might be central to your job... maybe you can’t have that job.
That’s bold, assuming that abortion’s a central tenet of a being a doctor. That probably equates to less than 1% of their time, unless they’re Kermit Gosnell. Many doctors it’s 0% of their time. Why not just wait until the baby’s born than toss it over a bridge? Same result, and a lot cheaper for everyone.
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> BigBlock440
10/31/2019 at 13:37 |
|
Point by point:
1. The law states that the person has
to be literally dying... you can be put at greater risk of dying if access to healthcare is worse... that’s what I meant. Someone who might go check up for a cold and gets rejected could develop pneumonia.... and then it’s a huge expensive mess.
2. I think the Nazi comparison is incorrect for a myriad of reasons. Mostly because of the difference between “asking” and “assigning.” By that I mean, you
don’t have to
work for the state government in Mexico... there is free will, and there is a free market where you could enter into a private practice or another line of business where you could potentially refuse some services.
3. I’m not arguing that
abortion alone
is central to a doctor’s job. But treating, examining, and dealing with people from all walks of life is, specially if it’s a state healthcare system that promises access to everyone. The notion that they could refuse to treat these people is contrary to the mission of the state healthcare system.