USA: WHERE FREEDOM DOESN'T EXIST

[the_wanlorn]

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK

Hey, guess what guys! As soon as in thirty days (30 days) you might go in to a doctor only to have him/her say "Sorry, I can't morally do that, go find someone else."

Even if s/he's the only doctor around!

Even if it's a lifesaving procedure!

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE WHAT THE SHIT.

Comments

[shadowkitty.livejournal.com]

IDK about America, but doctors in Britain have always been allowed to do that as long as they refer you to someone else. And weren't, you know, nasty about it.

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

See, in the USA, you won't have to refer them to someone else. You can just say "Nope, and you're shit out of luck." In fact, if you're a pharmacist against BC, you don't even have to give the 'script back to the person.

[shadowkitty.livejournal.com]

Well that fucking sucks.

[steppinrazor.livejournal.com]

And Britain -tends- to have better public transport... that's another big problem, here in the states. If your local doc won't do what you need, a lot of po' folks will have a HELL of a time getting to a different one.

[purgatori84.livejournal.com]

Dude, government, stay away from my vag!

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

sry2say they want to own it.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

That's precisely what freedom is -- not having to do what you think is immoral, no matter if you are the only doctor around or not.

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

I find it immoral not to punch racists in the face, and yet I'm still brought up on assault charges. Freedom is only not having to do immoral acts as long as it doesn't affect other people. Your freedom can't impugn on my freedom (to not have a broken nose, to not die of pregnancy complications, etc.)

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Doctor is free to help with pregnancy complications. He is equally free to refrain from doing so. Suppose you are a grocer -- quite obviously you should be able to sell carrots, yet refrain from selling potatoes if you think selling potatoes is somehow immoral.

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

Again, not selling potatoes isn't going to cause someone bodily harm.

[steppinrazor.livejournal.com]

Then they shouldn't be in that profession.

It's not like there aren't a TON of medical fields out there that wouldn't have to deal with reproductive issues.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Why? Freedom to be a doctor suggests freedom to administer a treatment to a willing patient, for a mutually agreed fee. This does not create an obligation to administer a different procedure to someone else. The latter would be serfdom, not freedom.

[shoiryu.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately for these doctors, they have, by becoming doctors, placed themselves into situations where certain "freedoms" simply don't -- and shouldn't -- apply. The very basic foundation of doctoring is to at least try to save lives. Actual lives, not hypothetical ones. It's a field of difficult decisions. If you are incapable of setting aside the APPARENTLY INCESSANT ringing echo between your ears of "ME ME ME ME I I I MY FEELINGS MY BELIEFS!!!!!" (and that is a tremendous problem with people of this particular religious slant) then you do not belong in the public field of doctoring.

I get that you're probably interested in arguing from an anarchist point of view here, or whatever? But we're talking about grownup issues here, in relation to a world where that kind of shit is just laughable. I would advise you to also step into this world before you offer any further kind of oh so edgy input. Nobody's helped by lofty arguments about magical "freedoms" that don't apply in any human society.

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

A lot of these people went into medicine and related fields in hopes of helping to change the law, so that they could start to pick and choose their patients/clients/whatever.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

I agree with your statement that in medicine, the way it is set up in this country, certain freedoms do not currently exist (or, as you put it, do not apply). That was in fact my entire point.

[shoiryu.livejournal.com]

You really can't imply that my statement works for your argument, I'm sorry. It's a vague statement to be sure, but the surrounding text clearly indicates what I meant by it and you're going to have to be less lazy than using cheap "you're proving my point" arguments and vague philosophical what-ifs if you want anybody at all to even read your comments without laughing. Sorry.

[moirarogers.livejournal.com]

Any time you make a choice to do a job, you are accepting an implicit restriction on your freedoms. That is called life.

I am free to do whatever I want. Take money from registers at my cashiering job. Tell customers that they smell like shit at a clothing store. Become a waitress and dump drinks in people's lap. Become a doctor and refuse to treat patients based on my own personal code of ethics.

And they're free to decide I'm a shitty cashier/clerk/waitress/doctor.

The sad part is, right now, I can get fired for being a shitty cashier, clerk or waitress. This law is just going to make it harder to fire someone for being a shitty doctor.

I hope you don't complain the next time a server exercises their freedom not to bring you your dinner because they think (for moral reasons) that you don't need it. Because getting them fired for it would be against the freedom that America is all about.

[emiweebee.livejournal.com]

AND YET THERE ARE LAWS.

I'm sorry you're not free to act like a fuck, refuse treatment to people for your petty whims, or murder people. YOUR FREEDOM, SO INFRINGED.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Thank you for confirming.

[emiweebee.livejournal.com]

YOU'RE WELCOME!

[emiweebee.livejournal.com]

You know, by the way, that doctors have an obligation to treat people, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, right? It's this little thing called decency and basic human rights.

[shadowkitty.livejournal.com]

[moirarogers.livejournal.com]

Actually, she is free to do any of those things. Doctors are free to do those things now. It's not necessarily going to get you PROSECUTED to do this shit. It will just probably get you fired.

The point of all of this discussion is if they need to face CONSEQUENCES for it. This law says that they should be protected from the natural consequences of their actions. Like passing a law saying you can't fire me from my waitressing job if I dump soda into the laps of people who I find morally reprehensive.

Maybe that's why this whole discussion is confusing the hell out of me. LOL I'm not sure what people are even arguing about, but none of it seems to be the scary part, which is protecting people from the consequences of not doing the job they said they'd do.

-Bree

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

WHY ARE YOU SO SMART?

[emiweebee.livejournal.com]

>:( I just raged in Trouble's LJ about this.