Trump's 'religious conscience'

Nurses General Nursing

Updated:   Published

You are reading page 12 of Trump's 'religious conscience'

2Ask

107 Posts

On 6/21/2019 at 1:30 AM, CamMc said:

Did you even read the article???? Yes it’s about abortion and assisted suicide but can cover anything anyone might have a religious objection to which often does include LGBT issues. And this can be for anyone including a receptionist. I’m sorry, if you hold such strong religious objections to potential issues like this, please do not go work in a health care career. My right to access health care should not be impeded by anyone’s religious beliefs. What you do for work is a CHOICE! Who you are is not and needing health care (except in cases of people acting recklessly) is not a choice. And if we’re going to stop treating people because they acted recklessly well then what’s even the point.

I read the first few paragraphs which were all that showed up and it was about ABORTION and ASSISTED SUICIDE..

But really? You really want every healthcare worker who cannot do this or participate in a SUICIDE based on conscience to get out of the career? I wonder who would be left? And what kind of people they would be?

Do you want all the religious hospitals which don't offer abortion to close their doors? The Catholic religion does not believe in birth control- should they close all their hospitals and healthcare facilities and get out of medicine? Anyplace called "Good Samaritan" should be out of business?

and vpt wants

On 6/20/2019 at 7:10 PM, vetpharmtech said:

I am convinced that when Christianity is booted out of our country, bigotry against LGBTQ patients will drop significantly.

The "lite" version of "the final solution"?

And christians are viewed as the bigoted ones...... SMH

CamMc

128 Posts

On 6/22/2019 at 2:38 AM, 2Ask said:

I read the first few paragraphs which were all that showed up and it was about ABORTION and ASSISTED SUICIDE..

But really? You really want every healthcare worker who cannot do this or participate in a SUICIDE based on conscience to get out of the career? I wonder who would be left? And what kind of people they would be?

Do you want all the religious hospitals which don't offer abortion to close their doors? The Catholic religion does not believe in birth control- should they close all their hospitals and healthcare facilities and get out of medicine? Anyplace called "Good Samaritan" should be out of business?

And vpt wants

The "lite" version of "the final solution"?

And christians are viewed as the bigoted ones...... SMH

Ok, how about this, you should be able to put aside your religious beliefs to DO your JOB or select an area of healthcare in which you can't be put into this situation. This conscience rule, says that someone can object to providing care, placing their beliefs over the safety and wellbeing of a patient.

You ask what kind of people would be working if the ones who object didn't work in the field and you would have people who are dedicated to the mission of nursing helping ALL people.

I've said this already, but it's a long thread, so I'll say it again. I can hardly imagine ANYONE enjoys having to be the one to save the life of someone who just took a gun and shot up a classroom of innocent children or any other terrible situation like that, but in the oath that nurses take it doesn't say, you can skip over the ones who have made choices you don't agree with. And if you are going to determine who you will or won't work with and that person is unable to access medical care because you don't agree with the person being trans or having an abortion, aren't you then passively assisting with their death anyway? If that person who desperately needs to have an abortion comes in and says if this abortion isn't done I'm going to kill myself, how is that any better than putting aside your beliefs to do what is best for the patient. What good is it to say you object to helping people in need if they're in need of life-saving care?

In regards to religious hospitals, I don't know really why they exist to begin with, but if my understanding of this "rule" is correct, it would impact public healthcare and the religious hospitals are I believe typically private. Also, I'm not saying if you don't offer abortion services the hospital should close down, I'm saying you can't turn someone away for something that is within your ability to do. I recognize that there are hospitals that aren't equipped to deal with more severe traumas, so when they have to turn a patient to a hospital that can provide that care, that is understandable.

I respect anyone's right to practice their religion, I'm not saying that everyone should be forced to participate in assisted suicide or abortion, but putting these rules into effect make it so that more people risk not having access to health care, while those with religious beliefs are protected from not having to do something to do with a patient they don't agree with? Again, why are someone's religious beliefs more important than my access to health care? I shouldn't be worried that if I happen to be traveling through a devoutly religious town and get into a car accident they could turn me away because this was god's punishment for my "sins."

subee, MSN, CRNA

1 Article; 5,430 Posts

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.

I have worked in two towns where the Catholic hospitals just closed their OB service and let the other hospital in town pick it up. In exchange, they took most of the traumas which has proven to be very expensive. One of the Catholic hospitals has closed. I can understand why people who are very religious might want to go to a hospital of their religion, but if you are a female of child bearing age, you can't have full-services OB care. It's usually sad when a hospital closes but it's usually what they need to do.

Horseshoe, BSN, RN

5,879 Posts

On 6/18/2019 at 9:56 AM, BrentRN said:

My concern with the HHS ruling was that it also included "Conscience protections from compulsory health care or services generally (42 U.S.C. 1396f and 5106i(a)), and under specific programs for hearing screening (42 U.S.C. 280g-1(d)), occupational illness testing (29 U.S.C. 669(a)(5)); vaccination (42 U.S.C. 1396s(c)(2)(B)(ii)), and mental health treatment (42 U.S.C. 290bb-36(f))"

How on earth are they subject to someone's religious objection? I can understand the ethical dilemmas of abortion and euthanasia, but hearing screenings? WOW!?

It also contains the following:

Conscience protections related to the performance of advanced directives.

Someone else's religious beliefs can trump your own advanced directives, and the way it's written, it is not limited to assisted suicide.

subee, MSN, CRNA

1 Article; 5,430 Posts

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.

First the zanies take away abortion; then they will want to take away birth control......

Specializes in NICU/Neonatal transport.
On 6/16/2019 at 2:58 PM, subee said:

Hi. I'm confused and reading this post wrong. How could a D&C for a partial miscarriage be an abortion? The pregnancy is already aborted but the mother continues to bleed; hence, needs a D&C. The OR supervisor found it easier to just send her to another room than to take the time to try to explain the logical fallacy to this moron.

Super late on the reply:

the medical term for miscarriage is abortion. She had an incomplete abortion since the uterine contents were not expelled, and so needed a D&C to complete the abortion. In the woman's G/P status, it would be a spontaneous abortion, not an elective abortion.

On 6/19/2019 at 7:57 AM, BrentRN said:

Some points of clarification: References to a god or higher power are only found in the Declaration of Independence but there are none in the US Constitution. The Declaration has no legal bearing.

In God We Trust started appearing during the Civil War. It officially became the US motto in 1956.

The proliferation of "in god we trust" came as a reaction to the red scare and McCarthyism, to prove we were not "godless commies".

DaveICURN

63 Posts

Boy, for a bunch of people concerned with peoples civil rights, some sure quick to limit the rights of others. ?

This rule simply enforces and adds to existing policy. These rules are designed to protect workers from religious persecution and possibly loss of job over their beliefs.

Do I feel this will lead to more death? No, this is because we work with a treatment team. If I can't hang blood because of my religious convictions, then someone else can.

"But DaveICURN," you may ask "what happens if that nurse is the only one who can give blood and refuses to do so?" Well then it is the responsibility of the administration to overcome that hurdle. Either the manager or DON needs to come administer that blood.

Do I think that nurse is at fault? I do, only if she had failed to make clear her religious preferences ahead of time. Otherwise it's poor management, not the nurse, who is at fault.

Protection of rights are important for all peoples. Who and how to draw the lines is up for debate.

MunoRN, RN

8,058 Posts

Specializes in Critical Care.
5 hours ago, DaveICURN said:

Boy, for a bunch of people concerned with peoples civil rights, some sure quick to limit the rights of others. ?

This rule simply enforces and adds to existing policy. These rules are designed to protect workers from religious persecution and possibly loss of job over their beliefs.

Do I feel this will lead to more death? No, this is because we work with a treatment team. If I can't hang blood because of my religious convictions, then someone else can.

"But DaveICURN," you may ask "what happens if that nurse is the only one who can give blood and refuses to do so?" Well then it is the responsibility of the administration to overcome that hurdle. Either the manager or DON needs to come administer that blood.

Do I think that nurse is at fault? I do, only if she had failed to make clear her religious preferences ahead of time. Otherwise it's poor management, not the nurse, who is at fault.

Protection of rights are important for all peoples. Who and how to draw the lines is up for debate.

The new interpretive rules don't require the nurse to notify anyone ahead of time of their potential refusals to provide care, that's one of the main concerns with the new administrative rules. They also don't have to notify anyone at the time of their refusal.

And I'm not sure I agree that waiting to administer blood products in a patient who needs them urgently wouldn't potentially affect the patient's outcome if they had to wait for a DON to make it to the hospital and give the products.

Nunya, BSN

771 Posts

Specializes in NICU/Mother-Baby/Peds/Mgmt.
On 6/16/2019 at 12:57 PM, guest22519 said:

Karl Marx gave some interesting advice to his activist followers: “Accuse your enemy of what you are doing, as you are doing it to create confusion.” This is pretty much what the left does. They destroy, burn, shame, commit violence, suppress speech, but hey it’s fine, right? It’s all Trump’s fault.

I think you spelled "the right" incorrectly...

vetpharmtech

217 Posts

8 hours ago, MunoRN said:

The new interpretive rules don't require the nurse to notify anyone ahead of time of their potential refusals to provide care, that's one of the main concerns with the new administrative rules. They also don't have to notify anyone at the time of their refusal.

And I'm not sure I agree that waiting to administer blood products in a patient who needs them urgently wouldn't potentially affect the patient's outcome if they had to wait for a DON to make it to the hospital and give the products.

If a nurse enters nursing because of her religious reason and treated patients as sinners instead of humans also because of her religious reason, I don't think she is a good fit to be a nurse or even a healthcare professional.

The fact that a nurse doesn't have to notify her boss of her refusal to assist in certain procedures because of her faith shows me that that nurse is an deceitful preacher in disguise who wants to use this noble profession to recruit patients into her religion. That is insidious.

Trump's administration just makes it easy for these bigots.

subee, MSN, CRNA

1 Article; 5,430 Posts

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
21 hours ago, LilPeanut said:

Super late on the reply:

the medical term for miscarriage is abortion. She had an incomplete abortion since the uterine contents were not expelled, and so needed a D&C to complete the abortion. In the woman's G/P status, it would be a spontaneous abortion, not an elective abortion.

The proliferation of "in god we trust" came as a reaction to the red scare and McCarthyism, to prove we were not "godless commies".

Hi LilPeanut: Yes, I know the difference between spontaneous vs. an elective ab..but I wish I had you with me to explain the difference to the moron who refused to participate in a missed AB because she thought it was an abortion. This was an experienced OR nurse. I was at a loss of words:)

subee, MSN, CRNA

1 Article; 5,430 Posts

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 6/22/2019 at 2:38 AM, 2Ask said:

I read the first few paragraphs which were all that showed up and it was about ABORTION and ASSISTED SUICIDE..

But really? You really want every healthcare worker who cannot do this or participate in a SUICIDE based on conscience to get out of the career? I wonder who would be left? And what kind of people they would be?

Do you want all the religious hospitals which don't offer abortion to close their doors? The Catholic religion does not believe in birth control- should they close all their hospitals and healthcare facilities and get out of medicine? Anyplace called "Good Samaritan" should be out of business?

And vpt wants

The "lite" version of "the final solution"?

And christians are viewed as the bigoted ones...... SMH

Who has EVER asked you to participate in an assisted suicide? In which facility has this ever occurred? Who has ever asked you to assist in an abortion? And yes, if a hospital elects not to perform full OB care for women and another hospital wants the OB business and goes after it, then the hospital who refuses to provide full service will close if they can't pay their bills anymore. If they are smart, they will provide another speciality service that the other doesn't. In my experience, they were assigned to trauma care which is always a money loser for hospitals. If I were a young mother who suffered a ruptured uterus (too many C-sections), and my surgeon couldn't perform a hysterectomy on the spot because her religious leader wouldn't permit it (we tracked him down in another country on the phone), I don't want to be that young mother. Interesting case. Mom had to be transferred to the ICU and as her blood pressure rose after transfusions, the bleeding resumed in the uterus and she had to get a hysterectomty in the wee hours of the morning anyway. This was not a Catholic hospitals but it was religious. Now, let's assume that the surgeon told her on the table during the section, that the scar tissue has become very thin and liable to rupture during another pregnancy, she couldn't even have her tubes tied at the same time as having her section. This is real-life sequelae of what happens when you can't follow through on on the case because of a rule a pope made up in medieval times when the churches and mosques needed more crusaders. That hospital needs to close.

+ Add a Comment