Jump to content

Trump's 'religious conscience'

Nurses   (7,389 Views 182 Comments)
by PediatricMA PediatricMA (Member)

PediatricMA has 3 years experience and specializes in Pediatric specialty.

493 Visitors; 51 Posts

advertisement

You are reading page 13 of Trump's 'religious conscience'. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

subee has 45 years experience as a MSN, CRNA.

1 Follower; 17,885 Visitors; 1,743 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

 

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.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,805 Visitors; 41 Posts

So I did not read the entire 440 pages of this new  rule, but I read a few synopses of it, and it seems like a lot of the hysteria is based on hypotheticals.  A lot of "it could mean" or "it could allow". 

Clinton signed into law the original conscience clause, and Obama rescinded part of it.  I did not read carefully the particulars of what Obama rescinded.  But there have been abuses also where healthcare providers have been threatened for NOT participating in things like abortion.

From what I read, this "new" law intends to protect healthcare workers from being forced to participate in procedures they object to, and does not intend to protect healthcare workers from discriminating against a group of people.  There is a big difference between the two. 

I am an OR nurse, and we do late term abortions in our facility.  I object to it, and have signed the form here indicating I won't participate.  It hasn't been a problem.  This new law doesn't change a thing for me, because I'm at a facility that respects my conscience.  Hopefully this new law has a good effect at facilities where the conscience clause for healthcare workers was not respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

319 Visitors; 95 Posts

2 hours ago, MEINstudent said:

So I did not read the entire 440 pages of this new  rule, but I read a few synopses of it, and it seems like a lot of the hysteria is based on hypotheticals.  A lot of "it could mean" or "it could allow". 

Clinton signed into law the original conscience clause, and Obama rescinded part of it.  I did not read carefully the particulars of what Obama rescinded.  But there have been abuses also where healthcare providers have been threatened for NOT participating in things like abortion.

From what I read, this "new" law intends to protect healthcare workers from being forced to participate in procedures they object to, and does not intend to protect healthcare workers from discriminating against a group of people.  There is a big difference between the two. 

I am an OR nurse, and we do late term abortions in our facility.  I object to it, and have signed the form here indicating I won't participate.  It hasn't been a problem.  This new law doesn't change a thing for me, because I'm at a facility that respects my conscience.  Hopefully this new law has a good effect at facilities where the conscience clause for healthcare workers was not respected.

A basic understanding of cause and effect would tell you that if healthcare workers can be protected from not participating in procedures they object to, that the people needing those procedures have to endure finding someone who will agree to perform the procedure. In the case of LGBT people who have been turned away for treatment of an issue having nothing to do with being LGBT, that is discrimination.

I would love to think we live in a world where these protections will just help the people who feel they deserve them and not negatively impact the people who are desiring these treatments, but our current clown in chief *and accompanying assorted politicians putting these things through* has made it his mission to set back any rights the LGBT (particularly the Trans community) have gotten. Since the media doesn't always like to cover all the things that have been going on, this proposed rule came just days after the administration also declared that they are trying to allow homeless shelters to discriminate against transgender individuals (turn them away or make them go into a shelter of their gender assigned at birth which is extremely dangerous...don't believe me look up all the transwomen of color killed this year) and that adoption agencies can also discriminate against LGBT couples. Keep in mind this was all just around the same time that a slew of states started passing heinous anti-abortion laws. Sure it all makes sense, take away legal abortion, take away good and loving families abilities to adopt those kids that aren't wanted, but can't be aborted, and while we're at it let's make sure that those same LGBT people and people seeking abortion can be turned away from receiving healthcare. Sorry, I know this is off topic, but you can't sit here and tell me nothing bad is going to come of these "protections"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vetpharmtech has 1 years experience.

709 Visitors; 152 Posts

28 minutes ago, CamMc said:

A basic understanding of cause and effect would tell you that if healthcare workers can be protected from not participating in procedures they object to, that the people needing those procedures have to endure finding someone who will agree to perform the procedure. In the case of LGBT people who have been turned away for treatment of an issue having nothing to do with being LGBT, that is discrimination.

I would love to think we live in a world where these protections will just help the people who feel they deserve them and not negatively impact the people who are desiring these treatments, but our current clown in chief *and accompanying assorted politicians putting these things through* has made it his mission to set back any rights the LGBT (particularly the Trans community) have gotten. Since the media doesn't always like to cover all the things that have been going on, this proposed rule came just days after the administration also declared that they are trying to allow homeless shelters to discriminate against transgender individuals (turn them away or make them go into a shelter of their gender assigned at birth which is extremely dangerous...don't believe me look up all the transwomen of color killed this year) and that adoption agencies can also discriminate against LGBT couples. Keep in mind this was all just around the same time that a slew of states started passing heinous anti-abortion laws. Sure it all makes sense, take away legal abortion, take away good and loving families abilities to adopt those kids that aren't wanted, but can't be aborted, and while we're at it let's make sure that those same LGBT people and people seeking abortion can be turned away from receiving healthcare. Sorry, I know this is off topic, but you can't sit here and tell me nothing bad is going to come of these "protections"

You can never win with Christians. They will find whatever available justification as an excuse and cloak it under "my religious conscience" to discriminate against others.

I support discrimination, but it has to be honest discrimination. That nurse did the right thing by mentioning in advance that she would not participate in abortion procedure. I will support a law that protects her conscience because she is honest. Other nurses perhaps will not do it. They wait for an opportunity to voice their objection before a procedure so that they can preach.

That is how insidious Christian nurses are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,805 Visitors; 41 Posts

1 hour ago, CamMc said:

A basic understanding of cause and effect would tell you that if healthcare workers can be protected from not participating in procedures they object to, that the people needing those procedures have to endure finding someone who will agree to perform the procedure. In the case of LGBT people who have been turned away for treatment of an issue having nothing to do with being LGBT, that is discrimination.

I would love to think we live in a world where these protections will just help the people who feel they deserve them and not negatively impact the people who are desiring these treatments, but our current clown in chief *and accompanying assorted politicians putting these things through* has made it his mission to set back any rights the LGBT (particularly the Trans community) have gotten. Since the media doesn't always like to cover all the things that have been going on, this proposed rule came just days after the administration also declared that they are trying to allow homeless shelters to discriminate against transgender individuals (turn them away or make them go into a shelter of their gender assigned at birth which is extremely dangerous...don't believe me look up all the transwomen of color killed this year) and that adoption agencies can also discriminate against LGBT couples. Keep in mind this was all just around the same time that a slew of states started passing heinous anti-abortion laws. Sure it all makes sense, take away legal abortion, take away good and loving families abilities to adopt those kids that aren't wanted, but can't be aborted, and while we're at it let's make sure that those same LGBT people and people seeking abortion can be turned away from receiving healthcare. Sorry, I know this is off topic, but you can't sit here and tell me nothing bad is going to come of these "protections"

In response to the highlighted portion above, your logic is flawed.  If a healthcare worker is refusing to participate in an objectionable procedure of an LGBT person, it is not discrimination.  They are objecting to the procedure, not the person.   I realize that there are some people who may abuse this law, but the law is still necessary, and eventually those people out themselves as bigots and racists and get what's coming to them.

States are battling over abortion rights.  And while you may think it's terrible that one state has passed the heartbeat law, I think it is far, far worse that other states are loosening restrictions way past the point of viability.   Try googling "abortion horror stories", and it will pull up a NYT story on late term abortions that includes a woman who legally got an abortion at 30 weeks of a healthy baby because she did not want to be a mother.  That is just wrong.   Late term abortions don't just happen for fetal anomalies.  It's infanticide and killing the most defenseless members of our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

912 Visitors; 44 Posts

31 minutes ago, CamMc said:

A basic understanding of cause and effect would tell you that if healthcare workers can be protected from not participating in procedures they object to, that the people needing those procedures have to endure finding someone who will agree to perform the procedure.

This is a free market health care model. If you want a special procedure done, then you seek out a specialist. 

 

39 minutes ago, CamMc said:

In the case of LGBT people who have been turned away for treatment of an issue having nothing to do with being LGBT, that is discrimination.

Can I see this specific case so I understand the particulars? 

 

41 minutes ago, CamMc said:

set back any rights the LGBT (particularly the Trans community) have gotten.

What rights is he trying to remove?

24 minutes ago, vetpharmtech said:

allow homeless shelters to discriminate against transgender individuals (turn them away or make them go into a shelter of their gender assigned at birth which is extremely dangerous...don't believe me look up all the transwomen of color killed this year

It doesn't "Allow discrimination". Discrimination is legally defined as, 

"Discrimination can be the effect of some law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap. Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employment discrimination based on any one of those characteristics."

Gender identity fits none of these criteria. 

This provision gives facilities the protection to choose how they want to handle the situation. These individuals will get a place to stay, just maybe not where they want. 

45 minutes ago, vetpharmtech said:

adoption agencies can also discriminate against LGBT couples

Once again, this is a private protection matter, not a federal one.

"To the extent allowed by federal law, no private childplacing agency shall be required to perform, assist, counsel, recommend, consent to, refer, or participate in any placement of a child for foster care or adoption when the proposed placement would violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions or policies."

 

This is still what I don't understand. You are okay removing the rights from people, to ensure rights for other people? Why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

912 Visitors; 44 Posts

47 minutes ago, vetpharmtech said:

You can never win with Christians. They will find whatever available justification as an excuse and cloak it under "my religious conscience" to discriminate against others.

Man it's almost like our nation was founded on religious freedom! 🙄

 

1 hour ago, vetpharmtech said:

I support discrimination

That is YOUR choice in life. To assume that everyone else subscribes to your way of life is harmful to everyone around you. Don't project onto us your own life views and ask instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vetpharmtech has 1 years experience.

709 Visitors; 152 Posts

53 minutes ago, DaveICURN said:

Man it's almost like our nation was founded on religious freedom! 🙄

 

That is YOUR choice in life. To assume that everyone else subscribes to your way of life is harmful to everyone around you. Don't project onto us your own life views and ask instead. 

Our nation was founded on religious freedom. I may be a naturalized citizen, but I am not that ignorant. Otherwise, I would not have passed the citizenship exam. Having said that, it only takes a few vocal voices from theocrats like Roy Moore or Mike Pence to disturb a still lake.

I simply express that I am all right with discrimination as long as there is an honest reason behind it. I am religious, too. I understand the burden that a Christian has to participate in a procedure that contradicts to his religious conviction. That is fine. Be honest about it and put it in writing so that Christians won't be bothered by those procedures.

Otherwise, I have no choice assuming that when a nurse enters healthcare, she would put her personal view aside and help patients the way that her facility protocol allows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

319 Visitors; 95 Posts

1 hour ago, DaveICURN said:

This is a free market health care model. If you want a special procedure done, then you seek out a specialist. 

I'm not referring to a special procedure, I'm referring to general medical care...see the answer to your next question.

Can I see this specific case so I understand the particulars? 

Yes, I already posted two examples of individuals in the trans community, in this thread, who had various experiences with non-trans related health in which their care was denied or brushed off due to being transgender.

What rights is he trying to remove?

So far he has already allowed transgender individuals from being able to serve in the military unless they have not begun any kind of transition and that they do so under their gender assigned at birth. I guess this is convenient though if we go to war, I'm safe.

It doesn't "Allow discrimination". Discrimination is legally defined as, 

"Discrimination can be the effect of some law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap. Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employment discrimination based on any one of those characteristics."

Gender identity fits none of these criteria. 

This provision gives facilities the protection to choose how they want to handle the situation. These individuals will get a place to stay, just maybe not where they want. 

This is not a matter of they just don't get to stay where they want, they get told to go stay in a shelter of their gender assigned at birth where they will likely face violence or they don't have a place to stay. 

Once again, this is a private protection matter, not a federal one.

"To the extent allowed by federal law, no private childplacing agency shall be required to perform, assist, counsel, recommend, consent to, refer, or participate in any placement of a child for foster care or adoption when the proposed placement would violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions or policies."

 

This is still what I don't understand. You are okay removing the rights from people, to ensure rights for other people? Why?

And no one will answer me, why does one's right to religious beliefs supersede one's right to healthcare?

Oh...it doesn't...specifically #3

Here's the link to the source of the screen shot..http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/studyguides/religion.html

 

 

 

religous freedom.png

religous freedom.png

Edited by CamMc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MunoRN has 10 years experience as a RN and specializes in Critical Care.

64,310 Visitors; 6,165 Posts

1 hour ago, DaveICURN said:

Man it's almost like our nation was founded on religious freedom! 🙄

 

That is YOUR choice in life. To assume that everyone else subscribes to your way of life is harmful to everyone around you. Don't project onto us your own life views and ask instead. 

Our founding fathers and those that came here ahead of them were seeking freedom from religion as much freedom of religion. 

To suggest that those who came here seeking religious freedom believed that people should be able to subject others to their religious beliefs and harm is absurd, that's the complete opposite reason of the US was founded.

Edited by MunoRN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

319 Visitors; 95 Posts

Here's some more articles to back up the fact that transgender people, but LGBTQ people as a whole, experience discrimination in most areas of life, but details on medical discrimination. 

The medical portion is towards the bottom so if you care you may have to scroll a bit, although I'd highly suggest reading the whole thing:

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565327959/poll-majority-of-lgbtq-americans-report-harassment-violence-based-on-identity 

 

And then there's this one, a link in this one is what led me to the previous article. 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/transgender-health-emergency-rooms-training-hospitals-science/

 

I have a ton of homework to do, but I will keep defending this. And I mean this in the most sincere way, I think the biggest reason the transgender topic, in particular, is so mishandled is that people don't understand it. So while I can not speak for all transgender individuals, I can speak for myself and the experiences I've had shared with me by others in the community and I want people to understand and learn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lane Therrell FNP, MSN, RN has 6 years experience and specializes in Family Nurse Practitioner.

7 Followers; 27 Articles; 10,868 Visitors; 163 Posts

6 hours ago, MEINstudent said:

 I am an OR nurse, and we do late term abortions in our facility.  I object to it, and have signed the form here indicating I won't participate.  It hasn't been a problem.  This new law doesn't change a thing for me, because I'm at a facility that respects my conscience.  Hopefully this new law has a good effect at facilities where the conscience clause for healthcare workers was not respected.

Thank you for providing a concrete example of a rational solution that apparently meets everyone's needs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing 0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×