Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[Lissa]

It's not that simple. If you are asked to do something that is morally objectionable, you would have reason to challenge your unfair dismissal. That is, unless you work in a state such as mine where employers have the right to dismiss anyone, anytime without cause. This is similar to cases where Islamic food workers refuse to touch pork products, or ask to have a prayer room for religious reasons. If the employer understands and agrees to these things, then the employer and employee have an agreement. It might also be the case of the pharmacist, and if not then the employer and the employee have a disagreement which might result in the dismissal of the employee.

When you start work with an employeer, they employeer tells you what they expect of you and you sign a contract to work for said employeer. If you refuse to do the work that the employeer sets before you, you have broken your side of the contract and thus give the employeer the right to terminate said contract due to your refusal to perform the task. You choose to work there and if everything is told to you up front and you still choose to work there and then later refuse to perform tasks that you were informed you would need to do, you should not have started working there or expect to be removed because you have broken your contract with your employeer.

I'll take your word for it. It sounds like, as does happen very often every day in many, many companies, an employee did the wrong thing and the employer had to take care of the mess.

This was a well documented case that was all over the news several years back involving a CVS pharmacy somewhere in the south (I want to say Kentucky or Arkansas, but I can't remember exactly where). Simply it was gross negligence on the part of the Pharmacists (there were 3 there, all refused to fill the perscription) and almost caused a young woman to commit suicide because of how they handled the situation. CVS came back and showed proof of the papers that all CVS pharmasists sign showing that they will fill a perscription that is valid from a physcian no matter their beliefs. Rightfully, although it cost CVS some money, they fired all three pharmacists in this case (and CVS had to pay the young woman for the pharmacists' gross negligence).

You are now substituting apples for oranges. If someone is terminally ill, sure, yes, a doctor can do what they can to help the person cope better with the time they have left. But, we are talking about casual sex, getting knocked up, and then freaking out about the responsibility, commitment and expense of having a child. This is a different type of "quality of life", the kind where you can act irresponsibly and take care of it by murdering your mistake.

Talk about apples and oranges. My point is that a medical providers job is to improve the patients quality of life. There are elective things that a medical provider can perform (plastic surgery is a prime example). Likewise, tell me how you heal diabetes. Tell me how you heal heart disease. Tell me how you heal bipolar disorder. Tell me how you heal AIDS. You see how wrong your assumption is of medicine is to "heal"? You don't heal diabetes, you don't heal heart disease, you don't heal bipolar disorder, and you don't heal AIDS, you treat and you improve the patients quality of life. You have no clue about what medical professionals do Kan, and your above statements show it. As someone that has spent nearly the last 10 years working in and around medical professionals on a daily basis, I can tell you that you really have no idea what medical professionals do for a living.

Well, I've posted other polls, and have reviewed dozens upon dozens on this topic. Pew Research is another one I look at regularly as they break things down to more of a nitty gritty detail. Well, the number is there. About 10-20% say that abortion should always be illegal, which means that 80-90% of people believe that as a procedure it should be available in some circumstances. What is telling to me is that (according to Pew); "Pew Research Center polling from 2006, for instance, finds that most Americans (73%) believe that abortion is morally wrong in nearly all (24%) or some (49%) circumstances. Only one-in-four (24%) say abortion is not a moral issue. And a 2005 Pew Research Center poll finds that nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States, compared with only 33% who do not feel this way."

Again, your polls are meaningless if they don't tell us exactly what people consider legal or illegal. Get that through your head. Throwing numbers around without meaning is of no use. On the other hand, seeing a large number of conservatives state that they think that abortion is valid in the case of rape, incest, and to save the mother tells me more than a poll that says x number of people believe that abortion should be illegal in most case without saying one word about where it would be considered legal says nothing. If you're going to use numbers to back up your arguement, make sure the numbers have meaningful use cause throwing around statistics without giving the full extent of what those statistics is like using soccer ball in a hockey game.

[kandrathe]

When you start work with an employer, the employer tells you what they expect of you and you sign a contract to work for said employer. If you refuse to do the work that the employer sets before you, you have broken your side of the contract and thus give the employer the right to terminate said contract due to your refusal to perform the task. You choose to work there and if everything is told to you up front and you still choose to work there and then later refuse to perform tasks that you were informed you would need to do, you should not have started working there or expect to be removed because you have broken your contract with your employer.

Like when I was 17, I worked in the hardware area of a department store. One day they had too many of us on a shift, while the girl who worked the lingerie counter called in sick, so I was told to go work that area. I refused, and I was subsequently dismissed because I had refused to do as I was told. There are often many circumstances that you will find yourself in as an employee that are well out of your job description. I would have never imagined when I started the job, that I would be asked to sell ladies underwear. I'm a person who beleives in standing up for their principles. I did, and I suffered willingly the consequences. I went and found a job where I was not asked to compromise my principles.

Talk about apples and oranges. My point is that a medical providers job is to improve the patients quality of life. There are elective things that a medical provider can perform (plastic surgery is a prime example). Likewise, tell me how you heal diabetes. Tell me how you heal heart disease. Tell me how you heal bipolar disorder. Tell me how you heal AIDS. You see how wrong your assumption is of medicine is to "heal"? You don't heal diabetes, you don't heal heart disease, you don't heal bipolar disorder, and you don't heal AIDS, you treat and you improve the patients quality of life. You have no clue about what medical professionals do Kan, and your above statements show it. As someone that has spent nearly the last 10 years working in and around medical professionals on a daily basis, I can tell you that you really have no idea what medical professionals do for a living.

You are still comparing apples and oranges. For most women, pregnancy is not a chronic condition. For most women, abortion is not a form of remedy for that acute condition. Like most people, I only have the experience of being a participant in medicine when I, or someone in my family needs medical care. But I do know the difference between an incurable (treatable) condition like diabetes, Aids, or terminal illnesses, and those things that are curable. Pregnancy is a natural body function, which is unique in that it creates another human being. As we've discussed before, messing around with that function is controversial since you are messing around with those inalienable human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Again, your polls are meaningless if they don't tell us exactly what people consider legal or illegal. Get that through your head.

I'm being civil, why aren't you?

Throwing numbers around without meaning is of no use. On the other hand, seeing a large number of conservatives state that they think that abortion is valid in the case of rape, incest, and to save the mother tells me more than a poll that says x number of people believe that abortion should be illegal in most case without saying one word about where it would be considered legal says nothing. If you're going to use numbers to back up your arguement, make sure the numbers have meaningful use cause throwing around statistics without giving the full extent of what those statistics is like using soccer ball in a hockey game.

These are national polls with lots of credibility. They are the numbers that are available for us. You are saying things like "lots", "lunatic fringe" or "most". I'm just trying to quantify what we are talking about. Mostly, I was pointing out that "lunatic fringe" meant about 15-20% of Americans. And, that a significant majority of people have issues with how "legal" abortion is being used whimsically for birth control.

[Lissa]

Like when I was 17, I worked in the hardware area of a department store. One day they had too many of us on a shift, while the girl who worked the lingerie counter called in sick, so I was told to go work that area. I refused, and I was subsequently dismissed because I had refused to do as I was told. There are often many circumstances that you will find yourself in as an employee that are well out of your job description. I would have never imagined when I started the job, that I would be asked to sell ladies underwear. I'm a person who beleives in standing up for their principles. I did, and I suffered willingly the consequences. I went and found a job where I was not asked to compromise my principles.

You also broke your end of the contract with your employeer. In a department store, your job is perform customer service, you refused and you employeer terminated your contract. You knew you were going to be performing customer service as part of the job.

You are still comparing apples and oranges. For most women, pregnancy is not a chronic condition. For most women, abortion is not a form of remedy for that acute condition. Like most people, I only have the experience of being a participant in medicine when I, or someone in my family needs medical care. But I do know the difference between an incurable (treatable) condition like diabetes, Aids, or terminal illnesses, and those things that are curable. Pregnancy is a natural body function, which is unique in that it creates another human being. As we've discussed before, messing around with that function is controversial since you are messing around with those inalienable human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No, I'm stating as I have stated, that medicine is about improving a patient's quality of life, you are trying to define only a small subsection of medicine. There are many diseases out there that cannot be cured/healed, they can only be treated. As such, a medical professionals goal is to improve the quality of life of their patients. I suggest you either get to know some medical professionals or work around them so you understand what they are truly trying to do.

I'm being civil, why aren't you?

No, you're being obstinate and not paying attention and trying to deflect the arguement without supporting your information.

These are national polls with lots of credibility. They are the numbers that are available for us. You are saying things like "lots", "lunatic fringe" or "most". I'm just trying to quantify what we are talking about. Mostly, I was pointing out that "lunatic fringe" meant about 15-20% of Americans. And, that a significant majority of people have issues with how "legal" abortion is being used whimsically for birth control.

That is their choice. There are also, by your own polls, people stating that a mother should die for a child to have a chance. How screwed up is that? That a woman's life is less important than the potential life of her unborn child that may die with her? It's one thing to play devil's advocate, but to be that insensitive to the life of a woman who's pregancy could kill her, that's so heartless to be beyond belief.

[kandrathe]

And what, pray tell, did they do heal these poor sods with 12th century medical technology?

<tongue is in cheek here>Come now. Leeches and blood letting are still accepted medical practice. We just don't think of it as balancing their humors, or letting out the evil spirits anymore.

Seriously, the 12th century was a turning point for western medicine, characterized by people like Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179) who wrote Liber Simplicis Medicinae, and "Liber Compositae Medicinae." They were still constrained by their Aristotelian understanding of physics (Air, Earth, Water, Fire, Ether), but still they did set the foundations upon which further explorations would be made. And, in the dark ages, there were plenty of sick to care for and study. Of course, in later centuries (13-17th) these witch-midwives would be burned for their understandings of holistic and herbal medicines (e.g. Jacobe Felicie).

Hildegard proposed treating patients suffering from “madness” with a deich consisting of pulverized laurel berries and blessed thistle as previously described. A recent series of experiments conducted by researchers at the Kyoto Pharmaceutical University in Kyoto, Japan provide evidence that Laurus nobilis, more commonly known as bay leaf or laurel extract was found to contain seven sesquiterpene lactones responsible for inhibiting nitric oxide production, a form of oxidative stress, in mice macrophages. More specifically, two of the most potent lactones, costunolids and dehydrocostus lactone, inhibited nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) induction that is in accordance with the induction of an important heat shock protein (HSP 72) which acts as the gatekeeper for the nuclear factor-KB activation. As mentioned above, in the presence of certain inducers the heat shock proteins are activated and play a central role in cell function by regulating the expression of certain proteins in the presence of certain environmental factors, thus allowing the cell to adapt more readily to changing extra-cellular conditions. The function of the sesquiterpene lactones was demonstrated in this study, and this function the facilitation of HSP 72 function by binding to certain SH groups, essential for protein structure and function, and by protecting the HSP from certain forms of oxidative stress such as nitric oxide. The lactones responsible for HSP 72 protection are constunolide, dehydrocostus lactone, mokko lactone, watsonol, eremanthine, zaluzanin, magnolialide, santamarine, and spirafolide. Other lactones isolated from the essential oil of the laurus nobilis that are also thought to aid in cytoprotection from oxidative stress are alpha-eudesmol, beta-eudesmol, lamda-eudesmol, alpha- dictyopterol, germacra-4(15),5,10(14)-trien-1beta-ol, spathulenol, oplopanone and alpha-methylene-lamda-butyrolactone.

So, like with eastern herbal remedies, just because it sounds crazy doesn't mean there is not some truth awaiting a scientific explanation. They did the best they could considering that a functional cellular level microscope wasn't invented until the 1600's.

[Jester]

So, like with eastern herbal remedies, just because it sounds crazy doesn't mean there is not some truth awaiting a scientific explanation. They did the best they could considering that a functional cellular level microscope wasn't invented until the 1600's.

Yeah, and they, just like eastern herbal medicine, get an E for effort, but an F by any scientific measure. In the vast majority of cases, this stuff doesn't do anything; in a tiny number of cases, it has a small, but relatively trivial effect. Scientific testing continues, usually at the behest of people who really want these things to be true, but the usual result is either complete failure, or no statistically significant success. It would be silly and ahistorical to hold medieval doctors' lack of knowledge against them, but even sillier to pretend that their innefective treatments work simply because, at one point centuries ago, they were thought to work by mystic german nuns. Hildegaard von Bingen is one of history's strangest and most interesting characters, but her medical advice was bunk.

My point remains, just because medicine (and medical institutions) have religious roots, doesn't mean that modern, scientific medicine conducted under state auspices has any obligation whatsoever to accommodate religion into its practices. Hospitals are entirely different entities, governed by entirely different concepts now than they were even 200 years ago, let alone 800 years ago, and this is overwhelmingly for the best, at least if we value our health more than our religion.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You also broke your end of the contract with your employer. In a department store, your job is perform customer service, you refused and you employer terminated your contract. You knew you were going to be performing customer service as part of the job.

Right. But at 17, I was hired for my knowledge of hardware, and not my (mostly total lack) experience with women's underwear. My customer service skills at 17 aside, they knew what they were doing, and I knew what they were doing, so my choice was to either be humiliated, quit, or refuse and let them fire me. It is common practice in department stores to cycle though employees since over time they get raises, and the department store has an eager supply of willing cheaper labor waiting to take over.

No, I'm stating as I have stated, that medicine is about improving a patient's quality of life, you are trying to define only a small subsection of medicine. There are many diseases out there that cannot be cured/healed, they can only be treated. As such, a medical professionals goal is to improve the quality of life of their patients. I suggest you either get to know some medical professionals or work around them so you understand what they are truly trying to do.

"The purpose of medicine is to prevent significant disease, to decrease pain and to postpone death." -- Dr. Joel J. Nobel. A social worker can improve my quality of life, or I can do it myself by simply moving to a warmer climate. "improving the quality of life" is actually the fundamental purpose of many if not most professions. I'm not be obstinate, I'm disagreeing with you. I think medicine needs to be focused on wellness, or illness and not as another doctor wrote, "Thus, I would describe the ultimate purpose of medicine as follows: to assist all beings to experience unbounded love and joy, and to know this is the essence of who we truly are. This purpose deserves attention fully equal to the relative purpose of curing disease." I believe that person has moved from healer to savior.

That is their choice. There are also, by your own polls, people stating that a mother should die for a child to have a chance. How screwed up is that? That a woman's life is less important than the potential life of her unborn child that may die with her? It's one thing to play devil's advocate, but to be that insensitive to the life of a woman who's pregnancy could kill her, that's so heartless to be beyond belief.

I think it really depends if you weigh the babies life and the mothers life as equal or not. If the baby is not considered human, at the same level as the mother, then it is easy to decide to chuck the baby. We are also arguing about the slimmest portion of reasons for abortion (~ 5%). The vast proportion of abortions are not done for medical reasons, and this is the ethical debate within our culture.

[Jester]

I think medicine needs to be focused on wellness, or illness and not as another doctor wrote, "Thus, I would describe the ultimate purpose of medicine as follows: to assist all beings to experience unbounded love and joy, and to know this is the essence of who we truly are. This purpose deserves attention fully equal to the relative purpose of curing disease." I believe that person has moved from healer to savior.

Who is this quote from, and why should we care? This sounds like a strawman.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

...this is overwhelmingly for the best, at least if we value our health more than our religion.

I still find is astounding how in both education, and medicine, religion played such an important role in moving forward human progress, and yet at this time we view religion as backward to scientific progress. I'm seeing here the primacy of the dogma of science and empiricism over any sense of the importance of rationalism in forwarding philosophy. You tend to focus on all the negative aspects of monasticism, and religious scholarship, but deny the scholarly discipline and drive that preserved and cherished knowledge and propelled Europe into it's golden ages. Yes, there has been great evil perpetrated by men, both within and without a religious context, so it is certainly not a benevolent shield that insulates us from harming each other. But, neither is it the malevolent force, or primitive mysticism you seem to portray it as either. When a society has harmony, it integrates its dominant philosophies. If you look even to the Protestant movement, it was seen as an attempt in stepping away from that backward mysticism and bringing "God" out of the ceilings of Gothic cathedrals and closer to the hearts of humanity. My only issue with Christian Protestantism is the concept of "Sola Scriptura", because I believe enlightenment comes from all aspects of your life regardless of the source. What is important is the ability to discern the gems from the dross, rather than blindly follow the same path, even though it may be well worn. As a life philosophy, emulating the positive character traits of that person known as Jesus is not too bad a place to begin. To me, that is the essence of Christianity. But, I've also been inspired by people like Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. I've had extremely interesting religious discussions with Hindu's, Buddhists, Muslims, and the many sects of Christianity. All these things, including science, help shape my world view, but I would not hold up or dismiss out of hand one aspect higher or lower than the others. All things are accorded their place in perspective.

As we've discussed in the past, the philosophies related to religion and those related to science can be synthesized to accommodate each other. This does not mean compromise. This becomes difficult when we consider such hot button issues, such as origin, or such things as existence itself. I think the way to seek that common ground would be that science asks questions related to evidence, and religion needs to respond to rationalize its philosophies to accommodate the reality of that evidence. When the answer is nonsense (as it often seems to be to scientist), then scientists should be patient because the empirical evidence and the truth it reveals will eventually sway the rational mind. And, believe it or not, most people have rational minds and desire their philosophies to be well ordered. Personally, I think the details (like who, what, when, how) are irrelevant to the greater philosophies of benevolence, love, self sacrifice, morality, and perseverance (motivation/purpose). Was there a biblical flood? I don't care, and that may not be the point of that particular text. People tend to miss the forest by examining and arguing over the trees.

Perhaps the conflict you see now is due to the rapid change in knowledge due to sciences, which has not been reflected in the philosophies and dogma's related to religion. I know we disagree as to the need for religion as a social glue altogether, but I still would maintain that it is a fundamental part of was defines the ethical and moral "WE" in our society. Steven Reiss has proposed a new theory of why people (globally) feel the need for religion, but nevertheless it does seem to be well rooted in the human psyche (~ 1/6th of the worlds population are atheists, agnostics, or non affiliated theists). If, as Marx wrote, "religion is a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers", then I'd say that no one should try to remove their crutches without insuring they can walk without them.

[kandrathe]

Who is this quote from, and why should we care? This sounds like a strawman.

This is a quote by Jeremy Geffen, M.D., from his book, "The Journey Through Cancer". My point in relaying that quote is to point out that how doctors might describe their role with their profession varies wildly from technical practitioner to savior of mankind.

[Lissa]

Right. But at 17, I was hired for my knowledge of hardware, and not my (mostly total lack) experience with women's underwear. My customer service skills at 17 aside, they knew what they were doing, and I knew what they were doing, so my choice was to either be humiliated, quit, or refuse and let them fire me. It is common practice in department stores to cycle though employees since over time they get raises, and the department store has an eager supply of willing cheaper labor waiting to take over.

How sure are you of that they wanted to get rid of you or humilate you? At 17, I highly doubt you had gotten significant raises to make it so it was worth getting rid of you. Usually if someone is doing quite well, they would rather keep you around instead of getting rid of you, and if doing well enough, promote you into a position of greater responsibility.

But be that as it may, that is getting away from the issue at hand which is if someone comes to you and requires your services or someone with similar services, you are doing a disservice to them if you refuse them service or refuse to refer them to someone that will service them because of your beliefs. If you don't like the services that you can provide, get into another line of work.

"The purpose of medicine is to prevent significant disease, to decrease pain and to postpone death." -- Dr. Joel J. Nobel.

So this is healing? Looks to me that if you read that for what it says, the good doctor is stating what I have stated, that a medical practioneers job is to improve the quality of life of the patient.

A social worker can improve my quality of life, or I can do it myself by simply moving to a warmer climate. "improving the quality of life" is actually the fundamental purpose of many if not most professions. I'm not be obstinate, I'm disagreeing with you. I think medicine needs to be focused on wellness, or illness and not as another doctor wrote, "Thus, I would describe the ultimate purpose of medicine as follows: to assist all beings to experience unbounded love and joy, and to know this is the essence of who we truly are. This purpose deserves attention fully equal to the relative purpose of curing disease." I believe that person has moved from healer to savior.

And here's a second quote that fits with exactly what I said, a medical practitioneer's job is to improve someone's quality of life, either by healing or by treating the disease. This doctor even comes right out and says it that quality of life is akin to curing a disease, cause even this doctor probably realizes that not all diseases are curable.

I think it really depends if you weigh the babies life and the mothers life as equal or not. If the baby is not considered human, at the same level as the mother, then it is easy to decide to chuck the baby. We are also arguing about the slimmest portion of reasons for abortion (~ 5%). The vast proportion of abortions are not done for medical reasons, and this is the ethical debate within our culture.

So let me get this straight, you think that a mother's life is less important that the life of her unborn child that could kill her and cost the life of both the mother and the child?

We are also talking about abortions in cases of the mother's life is endanger from the unborn baby, rape victims that become pregnant due to the no fault of their own, and incest victims that become pregnant due to no fault of their own. Anyone that thinks that abortions should not be performed under this circumstances is a sick, sick individual. They need to get out of the dark ages and get into the modern ages.

[Jester]

I'm seeing here the primacy of the dogma of science and empiricism over any sense of the importance of rationalism in forwarding philosophy.

This is precisely wrong. Science and empiricism are specifically constructed to be anti-dogmatic. Now, any given theory can become dogma, but the whole point of the scientific method, and of empirical focus, is to look most carefully at as much of reality as can be observed, and test each and every idea against the evidence, over and over again, never being fully satisfied by the existing answers.

You tend to focus on all the negative aspects of monasticism, and religious scholarship, but deny the scholarly discipline and drive that preserved and cherished knowledge and propelled Europe into it's golden ages.

Europe's golden ages, at every turn, from the rennaisance to the scientific revolution to enlightenment to the modern scientific world, were about a rejection of monasticism and religious scholarship, and a refocusing on the observable world. Every step forward has meant moving god, spirits, mystical forces and such out of the picture. No step forward has ever been made by inserting them back in. The cherished aspects of monasticism and religious scholarship are nowhere practiced as vehemently as in the Islamic world, and it was exactly those forces that killed, rather than allowed, the Islamic advances in science, medicine, and technology. Once dogma had been given pride of place, it crushed everything else.

But, neither is it the malevolent force, or primitive mysticism you seem to portray it as either.

It's a fairy tale. It ranges from a harmless belief in the unobservable all the way to the fanatical rejection of everything but the perscribed dogma. It might not always be malevolent, but, at least from a scientific perspective, it sure hasn't helped.

What is important is the ability to discern the gems from the dross, rather than blindly follow the same path, even though it may be well worn.

Fine and good. This is the opposite of medieval monasticism, which was all about producing dross from prior dross, and the rejection (often accompanied by flaming torches and stakes) of things which strayed beyond the bounds of the accepted faith.

As a life philosophy, emulating the positive character traits of that person known as Jesus is not too bad a place to begin. To me, that is the essence of Christianity. But, I've also been inspired by people like Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. I've had extremely interesting religious discussions with Hindu's, Buddhists, Muslims, and the many sects of Christianity. All these things, including science, help shape my world view, but I would not hold up or dismiss out of hand one aspect higher or lower than the others. All things are accorded their place in perspective.

I've held plenty of interesting and enlightening conversations with all sorts of people, but that doesn't mean I have any obligation to embrace a relativist or universalist philosophy. People can be interesting and still be wrong.

I think the way to seek that common ground would be that science asks questions related to evidence, and religion needs to respond to rationalize its philosophies to accommodate the reality of that evidence. When the answer is nonsense (as it often seems to be to scientist), then scientists should be patient because the empirical evidence and the truth it reveals will eventually sway the rational mind.

In other words, the god of the gaps. Science advances, god retreats. New discovery? Better "rationalize" our philosophy to accomodate the new evidence. More new evidence? Better toss out the new, revised religion in favour of the new, new revised version. Each iteration is based on no more than the last; the only difference is that the newer ones have to retreat further and further from substantive claims about reality as science displaces dogma.

Feel free to play that game, but I don't really see the point. I'm with the scientists you propose, I'd rather dispense with the whole idea of inventing newer and newer fictions to cover the gaps. It just seems like so much nonsense.

And, believe it or not, most people have rational minds and desire their philosophies to be well ordered. Personally, I think the details (like who, what, when, how) are irrelevant to the greater philosophies of benevolence, love, self sacrifice, morality, and perseverance (motivation/purpose). Was there a biblical flood? I don't care, and that may not be the point of that particular text. People tend to miss the forest by examining and arguing over the trees.

Do you not think people believed in a literal flood at the time the Bible was written? Do you believe that the enlightened writers had a series of elaborate metaphors in mind, and every generation since has simply mistaken them for a factual description of events? This is just the latest adaptation of the god of the gaps: we didn't really mean that thing that you tested and found to be wrong. What we really meant was this other thing, a metaphorical thing that you can't test.

Perhaps the conflict you see now is due to the rapid change in knowledge due to sciences, which has not been reflected in the philosophies and dogma's related to religion.

That's because science has a method for going forward, and religion has a method for going in circles.

I know we disagree as to the need for religion as a social glue altogether, but I still would maintain that it is a fundamental part of was defines the ethical and moral "WE" in our society.

Explain then how the least religious societies in the world also number amongst the least violent, and vice versa. Is that just a historical abberation? Are the Swedes hanging on to their orderly society by some unusual magic? Are the janjaweed in Sudan simply missing the bit in their religion where it's supposed to provide the ethical glue that stops them from indiscriminately killing people?

If, as Marx wrote, "religion is a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers", then I'd say that no one should try to remove their crutches without insuring they can walk without them.

That wasn't Karl Marx. That was Jesse Ventura. Karl Marx said religion was the opium of the masses.
"Let them keep their fairy tales. Don't tell them it isn't real, they might start crying." This is treating people like children. Nobody is forcing irreligion on believers, their crutches are safe if they really want to keep them. The trend towards irreligion seems clear enough to me; let people choose for themselves, and they will slowly drift away from religion as it becomes increasingly anachronistic.

-Jester

[Jester]

This is a quote by Jeremy Geffen, M.D., from his book, "The Journey Through Cancer". My point in relaying that quote is to point out that how doctors might describe their role with their profession varies wildly from technical practitioner to savior of mankind.

Yeah. And there's a pretty solid mainstream of medical practitioners who would tell you that this guy is selling hippie garbage. There's nothing necessary about a doctor looking to improve the quality of life of his patients that involves "seven levels of healing" or whatever else this kook is pedding. Using him is a strawman, unrepresentative of what Lissa is talking about.

-Jester

[Swiss Mercenary]

I'll repeat. A soldier surrenders their rights when they enlist.

And a GP surrenders some of their rights when they take the Hyppocratic oath. Which nobody forced them to, anyways.

When you try to be a doctor, your objective is usually to save lives and help people.

Helping people also includes abortions... Personal religious beliefs won't change the fact that some people's lives are going to be a hell of a lot better after them.

Doctors were asked how they would respond if a patient requested a legal medical procedure the doctors opposed on ethical grounds. Sixty-three percent said it would be OK to explain their objections to the patient.

Good on them.

Eighteen percent said they're not obligated to refer the patient to another physician who does the procedure.

And that's the problem 18%. You'd have to be very naive to think that becoming a GP will mean that you won't at one point be an accessory to an abortion. These people are placing their personal beliefs above giving people the care they need - fine on them, that's their perogative, but they shouldn't be working as doctors.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . as far as i'm concerned if someone wishes to become a doctor and they have certain moral or religious views that limit their ability to practice some medicine then they should find jobs that fit those circumstances.

Let us look at some examples, shall we?

A person who is anti-abortion gets his medical degree years before Roe vs. Wade. When that decision comes down should he: quit the medical profession?; move to a country where abortion is still illegal?; perform abortions against his conscience?; continue to practice medicine as he has?
Is everything legal mandatory?

A doctor practicing in Oregon a few years ago (or in Washington this past year) is against suicide. What would you have him do when the euthanasia laws were passed? Similar to the above case, except now what you seem to think he should be forced to do in Washington or Oregon will get him a jail sentence in the other forty eight states.
Is everything legal mandatory?

A practicing catholic gets his degree at a catholic university, works at a catholic hospital. He believes that abortion and euthanasia are wrong. These are the morals instilled in him throughout his life even into medical school. These are the principles and policies of the hospital at which he works. What would you have? The abolition of religion based schools and hospitals? The elimination of personal beliefs in doctors?
Is everything legal mandatory?

I think you paint with too broad a brush. If a doctor takes a job at a hospital where abortions are performed and he does anything to interfere between a patient and another doctor who have agree on an abortion, then he is wrong. He should be disciplined, even fired and forced to find employment somewhere that is more in line with his beliefs. But to say he should quit medicine because he refuses to perform procedures that are against his conscience? That I think is too extreme.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Like when I was 17, I worked in the hardware area of a department store. One day they had too many of us on a shift, while the girl who worked the lingerie counter called in sick, so I was told to go work that area. I refused, . . .

Ah, life is just a series of missed opportunities ;)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

<tongue is in cheek here>Come now. Leeches and blood letting are still accepted medical practice.

Funny you should bring that up. I go in every Monday to get 200 ml of blood drawn. Standing joke is 'calibrated leeches' and do they come in metric or English units.

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
Let us look at some examples, shall we?

A person who is anti-abortion gets his medical degree years before Roe vs. Wade. When that decision comes down should he: quit the medical profession?; move to a country where abortion is still illegal?; perform abortions against his conscience?; continue to practice medicine as he has?
Is everything legal mandatory?

A doctor practicing in Oregon a few years ago (or in Washington this past year) is against suicide. What would you have him do when the euthanasia laws were passed? Similar to the above case, except now what you seem to think he should be forced to do in Washington or Oregon will get him a jail sentence in the other forty eight states.
Is everything legal mandatory?

A practicing catholic gets his degree at a catholic university, works at a catholic hospital. He believes that abortion and euthanasia are wrong. These are the morals instilled in him throughout his life even into medical school. These are the principles and policies of the hospital at which he works. What would you have? The abolition of religion based schools and hospitals? The elimination of personal beliefs in doctors?
Is everything legal mandatory?

I think you paint with too broad a brush. If a doctor takes a job at a hospital where abortions are performed and he does anything to interfere between a patient and another doctor who have agree on an abortion, then he is wrong. He should be disciplined, even fired and forced to find employment somewhere that is more in line with his beliefs. But to say he should quit medicine because he refuses to perform procedures that are against his conscience? That I think is too extreme.

--Pete

No, No, and NO. You seem to have completely disregarded the implications of my statement. That which states that if a doctor find a certain practice morally unconsciounable they should pursue a work environment that supports their beliefs. If you feel that abortion or euthanasia (in certain states) are so morally wrong that you refuse to offer patients looking for information directions to where they can get such information from other doctors than you need to get out of general practice. I'm sure there are a lot of doctors that would feel the same way and i'm all for such doctors going out and starting their own practice with the stated goal of practicing medicine under these conditions.

If you are a doctor and are against abortion - Don't work in a clinic that does abortions.

If you are a doctor in Washington or Oregon - Don't assist patients in Euthanasia. The law only says it is legal, not that you are required to do it.

If you are a doctor and you work in a Religious based insitution that makes it known that they don't offer the above services, fine you seem to have found a good fit.

But, if you are a doctor in a work environment that will bring in patients who have vastly differing views of the morality of such issues and such a patient comes looking to you for help in regards to these issues you should at least give them the phone number of doctor or facility that can help them.

The issues you bring up are the obvious ones and the ones that stand out most as moral issues, but the ones that happen more often and I find as much more ethically questionable revolve around issues such as birth control, Plan B, or the HPV vaccine. The HPV vaccine in particular was a big "issue" over the last few years and there are many doctors who because of "moral" grounds will not discuss anything about this vaccine with their patients. Getting back to our original discussion, it is all about information and patient care. If you are a doctor you don't have to support pracitices you find objectionable but if you refuse to offer information or even inform you patients of their full options than you have taken a step across the line where you are caring for your own dogma more than you are caring for the patient. Maybe, just maybe, PATIENT CARE is the wrong field of work for you. If you want to proselytize you should have been a priest.

We accept that doctors are an at risk group for a lot of things. Doctors know that going into the job they have a higher chance of contracting all sorts of diseases. It comes with the territory. If a patient comes in with HIV and the doctor refuses to treat them because they don't want there to be a chance that they could get infected we would all say this is a failure of a doctor. Why is it different with the so called moral issues? If a patient comes in looking for any of the above mentioned services and you turn them out on the street without offering assistance in where they can obtain or get information regarding those services are you not equally a failure?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just cherry picking:)

Science and empiricism are specifically constructed to be anti-dogmatic. Now, any given theory can become dogma, but the whole point of the scientific method, and of empirical focus, is to look most carefully at as much of reality as can be observed, and test each and every idea against the evidence, over and over again, never being fully satisfied by the existing answers.

True, in theory. But in practice, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Max Planck, 1920)

In other words, the god of the gaps. Science advances, god retreats. New discovery? Better "rationalize" our philosophy to accomodate the new evidence. More new evidence?

Wish that that were true, then I'd have less trouble with religion than I do. But science advances and religion just gets more shrill in its demands that the faithful ignore the evidence and believe the dogma.

Do you not think people believed in a literal flood at the time the Bible was written?

Very likely, since the story's origin is from a region (Mesopotamia) where floods were not uncommon. The biblical flood is most likely a composite of actual floods and poetic exaggeration. Just like bears continue to grow around the campfire for years after they're killed, the flood deepened long after the waters retreated.:)

Explain then how the least religious societies in the world also number amongst the least violent, and vice versa.

Simple. Without religion, you can't really work up a good, blind, rage. Nor can you justify any and all actions. So you've got to play nice. :whistling:

Is that just a historical abberation? Are the Swedes hanging on to their orderly society by some unusual magic?

Yep, it is. All the violent Swedes left around 800 to 1100 CE to become the Russians, the Norman, the Valerian, etc. Those that stayed home were the nice ones, and like breeds like. "Think of it as evolution in action."

That wasn't Karl Marx. That was Jesse Ventura.

'Bout the same, except Jesse would win three falls out of three.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

You seem to have completely disregarded the implications of my statement.

No, I have not. You call for all who will not do everything that's legal to be kicked out of the medical profession. That would be like saying kandrathe should never be allowed to work in retail again because he once refused to work the lingerie counter. I simply pointed out the absurdity of your extreme position.

I also agreed with you that people should respect and obey the policies of where they work or find work elsewhere.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

And a GP surrenders some of their rights when they take the Hippocratic oath. Which nobody forced them to, anyways.

You mean this oath, "... I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

* Bolded for emphasis by me.