Quote from Ntheboat2
I don't know why anyone would WANT a doctor who obviously judges them for their lifestyle performing any kind of anything on them!
At the same time, I don't see why a nurse would put herself in a position to work somewhere where blood transfusions or abortions are going to be on the agenda.
I personally think it's fine for same sex couples to have a baby, and don't know why a doctor would refuse, but I would suggest simply finding another doctor. It's kind of crazy that anyone can sue a person for something like that. If there was only one doctor in the world who could do the procedure then that would be another story.
I went to the dentist for a consult on having my wisdom teeth pulled one time and had to list my medications prior to the consult. When the dentist came in, he started asking me why I was taking the medication, who prescribed it, and basically just made it clear to me with his expressions that he didn't approve.
I made an appointment that same day with a different dentist. He didn't refuse to do my procedure or anything. I'm sure he would've GLADLY taken my money, but I wasn't about to have to deal with that man again. If it would've been something as huge as getting pregnant...that's a little more intimate..and I DEFINITELY wouldn't want to deal with anyone who I know doesn't approve.
Methinks the larger issue and IIRC this weighed in on the WH decision was what happens when entire groups of physicans, hospitals, pharmacies and other healthcare providers/services in a community opt out on religous grounds from providing services they have objections to. This is becoming an increasing worry as healthcare/hospital networks in many areas of the country are becoming owned by one or a few large systems.
Say within an local area a Catholic hospital system controls >80% of the market including physican groups, pharmacies and so forth. What would happen then to abortion and family planning services for women in the area? Would they be forced to travel in order to have access to IVF? Abortion?
Dec 7, '12 by DoGoodThenGoQuote from Ntheboat2Methinks the larger issue and IIRC this weighed in on the WH decision was what happens when entire groups of physicans, hospitals, pharmacies and other healthcare providers/services in a community opt out on religous grounds from providing services they have objections to. This is becoming an increasing worry as healthcare/hospital networks in many areas of the country are becoming owned by one or a few large systems.I don't know why anyone would WANT a doctor who obviously judges them for their lifestyle performing any kind of anything on them!
Dec 8, '12 by Ruby VeeQuote from DoGoodThenGoI have to say this is something that has worried me for a long time. I'm long past the stage of needing family planning, but it's not just the Catholic hospital systems who are opting out of providing this sort of care. I believe that they hospitals who control the majority of a market still have a responsibility to provide care to the women within the market. If you don't believe in abortions, just don't have one. But don't try to control other people's options!Methinks the larger issue and IIRC this weighed in on the WH decision was what happens when entire groups of physicans, hospitals, pharmacies and other healthcare providers/services in a community opt out on religous grounds from providing services they have objections to. This is becoming an increasing worry as healthcare/hospital networks in many areas of the country are becoming owned by one or a few large systems.
Dec 8, '12 by edmiaQuote from MN-NurseObviously not a popular opinion, but I agree with you. In fact, the only way to fix some of the environmental problems we have created as a human race, we would need to all agree to only 1 child per family for about 20 years. Never gonna happen, I know, but that would be the responsible human response to our current crisis.