Apr 22 2004
You Call this Christianity?
More Christians gone wild, this time in Michigan:
The (Michigan) House voted 69-35 to approve a package of bills that would guarantee that medical personnel and institutions would not be penalized for objecting to acts that they object to for moral reasons, such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research. - lifenews.com
That’s right folks, the conservative right is advancing legislation in Michigan that will allow health care professionals to refuse service to anyone based on moral, ethical or religious grounds. If you can’t imagine what the problem is with that, think of going to the hospital with a sprained ankle but being refused service by a doctor because you sprained it in an Anti-War march. Or a male pharmacist refusing to issue birth control to a woman because it’s against his Catholic beliefs. Or a thousand other equally ridiculous - but perfectly legal - situations…
So much for the Hippocratic Oath! So much for “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required” and that silly “above all, I must not play at God.” part! Soon, doctors will be able to despnse treatment on the solid reasoning of ‘morality’! Of course, what’s moral (or even ethical!) varies from doctor to doctor and person to person, and has no legal interpretation, but just don’t get sick and you won’t need to worry if anything regarding your personal life will keep you from getting treatment!
The irony here is the people pushing this (the christian right) don’t see how un-christian it is not to help the sick. How can these kind of people profess to follow the teachings of a man who said:
Go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. - Mathew 10:7
Doesn’t make much sense, does it?
Here in Wisconsin, a similar measure did pass the Republican controlled state legislature, but thankfully our Governor veto’d it.
You would think that medical decisions that directly relate to the health of a patient would be free and clear of religous zealotry and built on the basis that everyone deserves the best treatment possible in an equal and fair manner.
Regardless of their race, gender, sexual preference, or religious practice people deserve the best medical care when they visit the doctor’s office or get a prescription refilled, not lectures on morality and idealogy.
I don’t know what version of the bible you got that from, but the real passage is:
If I were a doctor, I would like a law that protects me from being required to perform an abortion. Taking the life of a child has nothing to do with “getting the best medical care” and would like to be able to “opt out” of the procedure without penalty.
And you should put a more complete quote from the Hippocratic Oath:
“…If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”
“Doesn’t make much sense, does it?”
Actually, it does because if I were a doctor, I would heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, yada yada, but would object to taking the life of a child.
“not lectures on morality and idealogy.”
‘You’ wouldn’t necessarily get a lecture, but a doctor who objects to the ‘your’ morality and idealogy wouldn’t have to have it forced upon her.
If I were a doctor, I would like a law that protects me from being required to perform an abortion
I should’ve mentioned this in the post, because I knew it was a common counterpoint, but if you don’t want to perform abortions, become an ear, nose, and throat specialist instead. Or choose to specialize in the exciting field of dermatology or podiatry or urology, or any of the other 50 or so choices doctors can specialize in.
If a doctor has a problem with performaing abortions, shouldn’t they just stay out of the field of reproductive health to begin with? That way, there’s no need for a law in the first place.
More legislation isn’t the answer for either side. I do, however, agree with the other poster that as a person working in a capitalist state, you certainly do have the right to choose wether to perform a task or not. Your employer also has the right to decide wether to retain your services or not.
Of note, I will say that the “sound bite” (related to the must not play God piece in the Hypocratic oath) in the original post is a pretty typical debate tactic. Also, wanting an abortion does not constitute sickness, as you mention how un-christian it is not to help the sick.
The beauty of living in a Capitalist Republic is that you can easily decide to pay another doctor if one chooses not to perform an abortion. The doctor accepting the money will prosper, and the one turning it away may well have to choose another profession. But attempting to pass legislation (either way) is just plain silly.
As a contract programmer, I enjoy the ability to choose which language/platform I like to work with, and what kind of software I choose to write. However, if I begin to turn away contracts on moral grounds, I may very well find myself unemployed. The point is, I get to choose, not my clients.