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

[Swiss Mercenary]

And at this point I'm baffled. If killing people is against a person's conscience, why would that person join an army, especially an all volunteer army?

And, if certain medical practices that doctors are expected to perform, or inform their patients of fall in conflict with their personal beliefs, why on earth would they go into medicine?

The reason for why I ignored consciencious objectors, is because the government doesn't press anyone into becoming a doctor - everyone who has is a "Volunteer". Hence, the "Chose to become a doctor, but his religion prevents them from providing appropriate treatment for their patients" <--> "Chose to join the army, but his religion prevents him from dealing with the enemy appropriately" analogy.

[kandrathe]

The Hippocratic oath says, "do no harm," but when a provider refuses to give services to prevent someone from being harmed, they've broken their oath, and if I'm not mistaken, broken part of their license to practice medicine.

Yes, as Pete describes, they are caught on the horns of a dilemma. There is a procedure they cannot in good conscience recommend. Why? Because they consider the human embryo as also a living being, and that the doctor now has two patients. What is good for one (or her bank account mostly), will be lethal to the other. The reality is that this is a pressure tactic of the "pro-abortion" lobby who want to have those doctors who object to abortion drummed out of practice. I found on consciencelaws.org a good description of the vagueness of the current situation within the UK, the US, Canada, and other parts of the world. (in the US, the 1973 Church Amendment gave hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses the right to not participate in any procedure that was against their conscience.)

"There is widespread confusion about the extent of the conscientious objection clause in the Abortion Act 1967. Section 4(1) reads: ‘Subject to subsection (2) of this section, no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorized by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection….’ Subsection (2) relates to treatment ‘necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant women.’"

On their main site they sum up the situation thusly; Influential academics and professionals have begun to suggest that physicians who object to euthanasia are, nonetheless, obliged to refer patients for the service [Mandatory Referral]. More and more often comes the ultimatum: "Do what you're told, or get another job."

The 2008 Weldon amendment extends this guarantee of conscience by withholding federal funding for any institution that does discriminate against these medical peoples decisions of conscience. For example, even Catholic hospitals, who have a long standing moral aversion to abortion are being pressured by health care conglomerates to fall in line and do whatever they are told. The ACLU writes, "When . . . religiously affiliated organizations move into secular pursuits– such as providing medical care or social services to the public or running a business – they should no longer be insulated from secular laws. In the public world, they should play by public rules." ACLU, "Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights," January 2002, page 11. Which is ironic, since many of the world's oldest hospital's (e.g. St Bartholomew's Hospital, founded in 1123.) were formed as benevolent religious care giving institutions. One would think that the ACLU would also value the civil liberty of not being forced to violate your own conscience. What about State sanctioned executions? If the government orders a doctor to administer the cocktail of death, are they obliged to kill for the government? There are currently lawsuits in California against doctors who refused embryo implants for single welfare women who were able to save enough to pay for the procedure. At what point does the doctor just become the amoral prostitute of medicine?

I think that with most professions there are lines which you may not cross. For example, in software engineering, I would not want to be involved in designing the logic in anti-personnel mines. In trucking, you might imagine there are people who wouldn't want to transport hazardous waste, or explosives. A lawyer can choose to become a defense attorney, and even then which clients they might serve. It means that some doors are shut for those people of conscience, and the same is true in the medical profession. If you object to too many things, you probably would not earn as good a living as that person who would do anything.

[Lissa]

Yes, as Pete describes, they are caught on the horns of a dilemma. There is a procedure they cannot in good conscience recommend. Why? Because they consider the human embryo as also a living being, and that the doctor now has two patients. What is good for one (or her bank account mostly), will be lethal to the other. The reality is that this is a pressure tactic of the "pro-abortion" lobby who want to have those doctors who object to abortion drummed out of practice. I found on consciencelaws.org a good description of the vagueness of the current situation within the UK, the US, Canada, and other parts of the world.

"There is widespread confusion about the extent of the conscientious objection clause in the Abortion Act 1967. Section 4(1) reads: ‘Subject to subsection (2) of this section, no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorized by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection….’ Subsection (2) relates to treatment ‘necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant women.’"

On their main site they sum up the situation thusly; Influential academics and professionals have begun to suggest that physicians who object to euthanasia are, nonetheless, obliged to refer patients for the service [Mandatory Referral]. More and more often comes the ultimatum: "Do what you're told, or get another job."

What about State sanctioned executions? If the government orders a doctor to administer the cocktail of death, are they obliged to kill for the government? There are currently lawsuits in California against doctors who refused embryo implants for single welfare women who were able to save enough to pay for the procedure. At what point does the doctor just become the amoral prostitute of medicine?

I think that with most professions there are lines which you may not cross. For example, in software engineering, I would not want to be involved in designing the logic in anti-personnel mines. In trucking, you might imagine there are people who wouldn't want to transport hazardous waste, or explosives. A lawyer can choose to become a defense attorney, and even then which clients they might serve. It means that some doors are shut for those people of conscience, and the same is true in the medical profession. If you object to too many things, you probably would not earn as good a living as that person who would do anything.

The point is, if the procedure will bring about a better quality of life, the physician should point out the benefits. The case that I pointed out in my first reply involves a pharmacy that refused to fulfill a perscribtion to a rape victim and put the rape victim into a worse mental state by refusing service (to the point where the rape victim was ready to take their own life due to the tramau of the rape and the tramau of not getting the perscribed medication). A medical provider is there to bring about a better quality of life and make sure that the patient's best health interests are taken care of. Withholding information that would better the quality of life of the patient, or witholding treatment, means you should not be performing in that roll. If you cannot perform that roll as a medical provider, you should not be a medical provider.

[kandrathe]

The point is, if the procedure will bring about a better quality of life, the physician should point out the benefits. The case that I pointed out in my first reply involves a pharmacy that refused to fulfill a prescription to a rape victim and put the rape victim into a worse mental state by refusing service (to the point where the rape victim was ready to take their own life due to the trauma of the rape and the trauma of not getting the prescribed medication). A medical provider is there to bring about a better quality of life and make sure that the patient's best health interests are taken care of. Withholding information that would better the quality of life of the patient, or withholding treatment, means you should not be performing in that roll. If you cannot perform that roll as a medical provider, you should not be a medical provider.

Or, if they are intent on getting the pills they require, they find the doctor who will prescribe them, the pharmacy that will fill that prescription, and the insurance company that will pay for them (or pay for them out of pocket). If they are under too much mental duress, then I'm certain that most victim's counseling centers would have help available. Anecdotally, we might easily point at an example, like this one, and say "Bad pharmacy!", but pharmacies are still a business that are often owned and operated by the pharmacist, who should be able to freely decide which medicines they will stock. If a person decided to commit suicide because the 7-11 was out of stock on beef jerky, would you blame the owner of the 7-11?

Abortion is the toughest example in this moral conscience dilemma. As a society we are not entirely sure if the unborn baby is even a citizen, or when it becomes one. In the US, the electorate is split at about 50/50 on this issue. Then, for those extreme cases of rape, incest, imminent death of the mother, the question of what is the right ethical decision is akin to the 10 people in the 7 man life raft problem. For those people that believe the unborn baby also has the right of survival, expediently killing it might not be the right ethical decision.

[Lissa]

Or, if they are intent on getting the pills they require, they find the doctor who will prescribe them, the pharmacy that will fill that prescription, and the insurance company that will pay for them (or pay for them out of pocket). If they are under too much mental duress, then I'm certain that most victim's counseling centers would have help available. Anecdotally, we might easily point at an example, like this one, and say "Bad pharmacy!", but pharmacies are still a business that are often owned and operated by the pharmacist, who should be able to freely decide which medicines they will stock. If a person decided to commit suicide because the 7-11 was out of stock on beef jerky, would you blame the owner of the 7-11?

Abortion is the toughest example in this moral conscience dilemma. As a society we are not entirely sure if the unborn baby is even a citizen, or when it becomes one. In the US, the electorate is split at about 50/50 on this issue. Then, for those extreme cases of rape, incest, imminent death of the mother, the question of what is the right ethical decision is akin to the 10 people in the 7 man life raft problem. For those people that believe the unborn baby also has the right of survival, expediently killing it might not be the right ethical decision.

You don't seem to understand the point. The pharmacy in question had the drug. The victim of the rape was not in their right mind due to the duress they had been put under. A Doctor had given them the perscription to be filled. The pharmacist in question refused to fulfill the perscription and then gave the victim a hard time because of they felt it was morally objectionable. The victim had every right, once in a calmed state and looking back on the situation to legally sue the pharmacy and pharmacist in question for not fulfilling the perscription or telling the victim where they could go to get the perscription fulfilled.

If you refuse to given a patient information or point them to where they could get the information because you find it morally objectionable even though it will improve the quality of life of the patient, you should not be a medical practiioneer. Your job as a medical practioneer is to improve the quality of life of your patients, if you refuse to do so because you find aspects morally objectionable, then you should go find another position where you would not be put into that moral dilemma.

Also, to speak to you analogy, you do realize that most conservative thought is that abortion is valid in the case of rape, incest, or mother's life is in jeopardy. It is only the far right fringe that believes that the child should take precidence over the mother (a very dark ages mentality). You're 10 people in 7 man raft is the epitomy of a straw man arguement in this case. You should not force someone to have to die to have a child or was forced into a situation where they became pregant against their will, and most conservative thought agrees with that stance.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Or, if they are intent on getting the pills they require, they find the doctor who will prescribe them, the pharmacy that will fill that prescription, and the insurance company that will pay for them (or pay for them out of pocket). If they are under too much mental duress, then I'm certain that most victim's counseling centers would have help available.

If the generals are so intent on the army to complete their objective... I'm sure that they'll be able to find someone else to carry out their orders - not the guy who volunteered into the service, but refuses to shoot his weapon.

[kandrathe]

You don't seem to understand the point. The pharmacy in question had the drug. The victim of the rape was not in their right mind due to the duress they had been put under. A Doctor had given them the prescription to be filled. The pharmacist in question refused to fulfill the prescription and then gave the victim a hard time because of they felt it was morally objectionable. The victim had every right, once in a calmed state and looking back on the situation to legally sue the pharmacy and pharmacist in question for not fulfilling the prescription or telling the victim where they could go to get the prescription fulfilled.

Then, the court would be the correct place to resolve the issue. These are the types of situations that need adjudication. If the person who refused to sell the product was an employee of the pharmacy, then the pharmacy as a business would bear the loss for hiring this person who has moral objections. Just as it would be for a trucking company to hire a trucker who refuses to haul toxic waste.

If you refuse to given a patient information or point them to where they could get the information because you find it morally objectionable even though it will improve the quality of life of the patient, you should not be a medical practitioner. Your job as a medical practitioner is to improve the quality of life of your patients, if you refuse to do so because you find aspects morally objectionable, then you should go find another position where you would not be put into that moral dilemma.

Then no one who has a conscience will be a medical practitioner. You will always find a limit beyond which most people will not go, and this is doubly true in medicine. The duty of medicine is not to "improve the quality of life", it is to heal.

Also, to speak to you analogy, you do realize that most conservative thought is that abortion is valid in the case of rape, incest, or mother's life is in jeopardy. It is only the far right fringe that believes that the child should take precedence over the mother (a very dark ages mentality). You're 10 people in 7 man raft is the epitome of a straw man argument in this case. You should not force someone to have to die to have a child or was forced into a situation where they became pregnant against their will, and most conservative thought agrees with that stance.

According to a recent (Jan 2008) Washington Post-ABC News Poll - question 25 - 21% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all cases, and 15% believe abortion should be illegal in all cases. So in this case, extreme fringe means 15% of the sample. In that poll, 57% believe that abortion should be mostly available, and 40% believe it should be mostly unavailable. The poll also needs to be understood within its sampling of (e.g. 39% Democrats, 27% Republicans, and 29% independent). Also, I'm not presenting a stand on the issue, only reflecting what most opinion polls are showing.

Would it be ethical to kill or sell our young children because it would improve the quality of our lives? That is the justification for the majority of abortion procedures, with the only difference being postpartum. Most abortions are an economic choice, rather than one of morality or ethics. I don't think the life raft is a straw man argument. If you needed to lose one person and had 6 useful people (for the survival of the 7) in the raft, and an unnecessary mother with an infant, would you choose to toss one or both of them overboard?

[kandrathe]

If the generals are so intent on the army to complete their objective... I'm sure that they'll be able to find someone else to carry out their orders - not the guy who volunteered into the service, but refuses to shoot his weapon.

In our military, you need to file your conscientious objection at the time of enlistment. In a volunteer army, this might be the grounds of denying your application. If you filed as a conscientious objector afterwards, it might be the grounds for discharge. I'm thinking of the famous example of Sgt. York, however.

Also, don't confuse those who are "free" with those who serve in the military. When you enlist, you surrender your civilian rights.

[Lissa]

Then, the court would be the correct place to resolve the issue. These are the types of situations that need adjudication. If the person who refused to sell the product was an employee of the pharmacy, then the pharmacy as a business would bear the loss for hiring this person who has moral objections. Just as it would be for a trucking company to hire a trucker who refuses to haul toxic waste.

Wrong. When you become an employee you agree to follow the rules and regulations of the business you are a part of. If that business says that you must do something that you find objectionable, you should either quit or recognize that you will be removed for someone that will perform what the business asks you to do. In this case the business had the materials to provide, but the pharmacist choose not to supply them even though they were obligated by the contract they signed when they joined the company to perform what the company tasked of them. Then to take it further and berate the victim and cause her additional mental trauma because the pharmacist in question found the use of the drug morally objectionable and almost caused the victim to commit suicide (and the only reason she didn't was due to the intervention of the friend that was with her) shows gross negligence on the part of the pharmacist. Rightfully the Pharmacy fired the pharmacist after the incident for not fulfilling his obligations as an employee.

Then no one who has a conscience will be a medical practitioner. You will always find a limit beyond which most people will not go, and this is doubly true in medicine. The duty of medicine is not to "improve the quality of life", it is to heal.

I know some medical practioneers that would scoff at your comment. There are things that you cannot heal, but you can improve the patient's quality of life. The goal of medicine is treat the sick and injured and improve their quality of life, if that means healing then that is part of it, but if the person has a terminal disease of which there is no cure and no healing that can be done, but the patient can be made more comfortable, then that is goal the practitioneer.

According to a recent (Jan 2008) Washington Post-ABC News Poll - question 25 - 21% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all cases, and 15% believe abortion should be illegal in all cases. So in this case, extreme fringe means 15% of the sample. In that poll, 57% believe that abortion should be mostly available, and 40% believe it should be mostly unavailable. The poll also needs to be understood within its sampling of (e.g. 39% Democrats, 27% Republicans, and 29% independent). Also, I'm not presenting a stand on the issue, only reflecting what most opinion polls are showing.

Would it be ethical to kill or sell our young children because it would improve the quality of our lives? That is the justification for the majority of abortion procedures, with the only difference being postpartum. Most abortions are an economic choice, rather than one of morality or ethics. I don't think the life raft is a straw man argument. If you needed to lose one person and had 6 useful people (for the survival of the 7) in the raft, and an unnecessary mother with an infant, would you choose to toss one or both of them overboard?

And without the information on what should be mostly available and what should not be mostly available, your poll is useless. I would bet that if you looked more deeply into that poll, you would find that should not be mostly available would show that in the case of rape, incest, or the survival of the mother, the 40% that said should not mostly be available would say it should be availlable. But again, without the actual information from the poll, your poll is meaningless. On the other hand, listing to the majority of conservatives out there, a large number say as I have said, in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, abortion should be allowed.

[Swiss Mercenary]

In our military, you need to file your conscientious objection at the time of enlistment. In a volunteer army, this might be the grounds of denying your application. If you filed as a conscientious objector afterwards, it might be the grounds for discharge. I'm thinking of the famous example of Sgt. York, however.

Hence, doctors objecting to performing those medical practices should be denied their GP license. And if they take that position after having practices medicine, it should be grounds for revoking the license.

Also, don't confuse those who are "free" with those who serve in the military. When you enlist, you surrender your civilian rights.

When I hire you to do a job... You can either perform your duties, or if your religion prohibits you from doing so , I can fire you, and find someone capable. I don't see a difference between that, and enlisting in the military (Except that I won't send you to jail when you refuse to do your job).

Likewise, when a professional organisation deems you capable of performing a job... You can either perform it properly, or lose your license.

You knew what you were expected to do when you signed up/got your license/got hired by me. If you don't have the stomach, nobody pressed you into volunteering/becoming a doctor/working for me.

[Taem]

Then no one who has a conscience will be a medical practitioner. You will always find a limit beyond which most people will not go, and this is doubly true in medicine. The duty of medicine is not to "improve the quality of life", it is to heal.

Riiight. So all those ads I see in the papers to "improve your sex life with Viagra," all the ads to "feel better," for preventative measures, etc... this is to heal? I don't think so. In America, medicine is all about $$$ and don't forget it. I know plenty of people who go down to Mexico to get Somas and Vicadin for a very cheap price, whereas here in the states, they'd have to shell out an arm and a leg to pay a doctor and pharmacist if they didn't have insurance. Why can't I buy my meds from Canada? Why can't I get Viagra or the morning after pill hassle free over the counter like they can in other countries? Get real kandrathe. It's all about $$$ here.

For some reason this reminds me of my dog. He has a chronic itching problem. We've tried every kind of alternative food there is for him, but he still starts smelling really bad then itching; his skin becomes swollen so he can barely open his eyes and he is miserable. We have go to the vet for medicine, and they know he needs a steroid/histimie blocker on a regular basis, but every time we go, they prescribe a steroid/histimie blocker pill with a tapering effect, as if his symptoms will magically dissappear overnite. But of course as soon as his meds run out, he starts itching again and becomming swollen. What logic is there in prescribing this tapering effect for steroids when you know the patient won't improve without chronic useage? Of course, so we have to bring him back in to get a full "check-up" and pay the $60 visit + pill cost. It's all about $$$ for doctors, even vets, and don't forget it.

[Jester]

Which is ironic, since many of the world's oldest hospital's (e.g. St Bartholomew's Hospital, founded in 1123.) were formed as benevolent religious care giving institutions.

This is not ironic. Old hospitals were not places you went to be healed. They were places where you went to die in the arms of god. Nobody in the modern world (with the exception of Mother Teresa) uses this archaic form of hospital care, which killed vastly more people than it saved. It was "benevolent" only in the sense that it brought poor people to god, which, if you don't believe in god, is no value whatsoever.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Hence, doctors objecting to performing those medical practices should be denied their GP license. And if they take that position after having practices medicine, it should be grounds for revoking the license.

With a worldwide shortage of medical personnel, are we ready to get rid of perhaps another 50% of them?

When I hire you to do a job... You can either perform your duties, or if your religion prohibits you from doing so , I can fire you, and find someone capable. I don't see a difference between that, and enlisting in the military (Except that I won't send you to jail when you refuse to do your job). Likewise, when a professional organization deems you capable of performing a job... You can either perform it properly, or lose your license. You knew what you were expected to do when you signed up/got your license/got hired by me. If you don't have the stomach, nobody pressed you into volunteering/becoming a doctor/working for me.

Unless I state in advance, "I don't believe in taking lives." And, you hired me anyway.

[Swiss Mercenary]

With a worldwide shortage of medical personnel, are we ready to get rid of perhaps another 50% of them?

83% of statistical figures are made up on the spot.

Unless I state in advance, "I don't believe in taking lives." And, you hired me anyway.

Believe it or not - if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'm sure there's plenty of doctors who may not believe that an abortion is most appropriate for situation X. They still fulfill their duties to their patients, despite personal beliefs.

And I'll bet you a bridge that not every single one of the doctors who got their licenses despite their personal beliefs conflicting with the demands of modern medicine have announced their intentions.

[kandrathe]

83% of statistical figures are made up on the spot.

Assuming doctors reflect the general population, which is mostly evenly split.

Believe it or not - if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'm sure there's plenty of doctors who may not believe that an abortion is most appropriate for situation X. They still fulfill their duties to their patients, despite personal beliefs.

Wow. This is really quite astounding. There is no compromise here for people with particular belief systems that are incompatible with your world view. Your answer is, "If you don't like it, quit your profession." If this is what our world has in store, then its going to become a very cruel place. Your viewpoint then is that a persons personal beliefs are inconsequential to the majority opinion, and if they can't stand the heat, then they can get out of the country.

And I'll bet you a bridge that not every single one of the doctors who got their licenses despite their personal beliefs conflicting with the demands of modern medicine have announced their intentions.

I'm sure you believe it would be a fair litmus test to ask pre-med students their stance on abortion, and flunk them out if they were against it. Just like how any scientist must be an atheist to have any respect. So, religious freedom is all well and good, as long as you leave it in the church. Once you enter the public square, you need to set your ethics and morality aside and adopt that which is deemed appropriate by the State. This is the kind of cruel tyranny I am expecting to get forced down my throat.

Funny that those who scream for equality and decry discrimination, are also those who don't recognize it when they are doing it to others.

[Swiss Mercenary]

So, again, why do we have doctors not doing their jobs because of their religious beliefs, yet soldiers not doing their jobs because of their religious beliefs face discharge/jail time?

You've yet to answer that question - at least, so far responses have largely focused on bleeding heart "We must respect their feelings" and "Well, everyone OBVIOUSLY knew this guy will refuse to perform abortions, yet they still hired him." The former... For some reason only seems to apply to doctors, while when I bring up an example that defies the latter, you scream religious discrimination.

[kandrathe]

Wrong. When you become an employee you agree to follow the rules and regulations of the business you are a part of. If that business says that you must do something that you find objectionable, you should either quit or recognize that you will be removed for someone that will perform what the business asks you to do.

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.

In this case the business had the materials to provide, but the pharmacist choose not to supply them even though they were obligated by the contract they signed when they joined the company to perform what the company tasked of them. Then to take it further and berate the victim and cause her additional mental trauma because the pharmacist in question found the use of the drug morally objectionable and almost caused the victim to commit suicide (and the only reason she didn't was due to the intervention of the friend that was with her) shows gross negligence on the part of the pharmacist. Rightfully the Pharmacy fired the pharmacist after the incident for not fulfilling his obligations as an employee.

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.

I know some medical practitioners that would scoff at your comment. There are things that you cannot heal, but you can improve the patient's quality of life. The goal of medicine is treat the sick and injured and improve their quality of life, if that means healing then that is part of it, but if the person has a terminal disease of which there is no cure and no healing that can be done, but the patient can be made more comfortable, then that is goal the practitioner.

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.

And without the information on what should be mostly available and what should not be mostly available, your poll is useless. I would bet that if you looked more deeply into that poll, you would find that should not be mostly available would show that in the case of rape, incest, or the survival of the mother, the 40% that said should not mostly be available would say it should be available. But again, without the actual information from the poll, your poll is meaningless. On the other hand, listing to the majority of conservatives out there, a large number say as I have said, in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, abortion should be allowed.

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."

[kandrathe]

So, again, why do we have doctors not doing their jobs because of their religious beliefs, yet soldiers not doing their jobs because of their religious beliefs face discharge/jail time?

I'll repeat. A soldier surrenders their rights when they enlist. They are subject to command, and if they disobey the slightest order, they are disciplined according to a military code of conduct and punishment.

You've yet to answer that question - at least, so far responses have largely focused on bleeding heart "We must respect their feelings" and "Well, everyone OBVIOUSLY knew this guy will refuse to perform abortions, yet they still hired him." The former... For some reason only seems to apply to doctors, while when I bring up an example that defies the latter, you scream religious discrimination.

When you apply for the job of prison executioner, you know that you are going to be asked to kill people. When you try to be a doctor, your objective is usually to save lives and help people. Here is an article in the Chicago Sun Times on this very topic. "Researchers surveyed 1,820 doctors, and 63 percent responded. 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. Eighteen percent said they're not obligated to refer the patient to another physician who does the procedure. " Also, "However, most states have enacted "conscience clauses." In Illinois, for example, a health professional cannot be held liable for refusing to "perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any . . . health care service which is contrary to the conscience of such physician or health care personnel."

[kandrathe]

This is not ironic. Old hospitals were not places you went to be healed. They were places where you went to die in the arms of god. Nobody in the modern world (with the exception of Mother Teresa) uses this archaic form of hospital care, which killed vastly more people than it saved. It was "benevolent" only in the sense that it brought poor people to god, which, if you don't believe in god, is no value whatsoever.

I don't think you are giving old Bart's a fair shake. I'm quite sure that many sick people have walked away from there healed. This source says, "The King(Henry VIII) commanded that Bart's duty was to minister to prisoners, to shelter the poor, to visit the sick, to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked and bury the dead. The Masters of the Hospital resolutely ignored these instructions concentrating their efforts as before on caring for the sick."

[Jester]

I don't think you are giving old Bart's a fair shake. I'm quite sure that many sick people have walked away from there healed. This source says, "The King(Henry VIII) commanded that Bart's duty was to minister to prisoners, to shelter the poor, to visit the sick, to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked and bury the dead. The Masters of the Hospital resolutely ignored these instructions concentrating their efforts as before on caring for the sick."

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

They had no idea what the diseases were. They had no idea what the human anatomy was. Their theories on how the body functioned were complete fictions. Their medicines were at best barely more than placeboes, at worst, fatal. If they saved anyone, it was because even being stuck in with useless 'healers' and a host of other sick people was probably healthier than starving in a gutter somewhere, or because they recovered on their own and just happened to be in the hospital while they did.

Now, you're right, I'm not giving poor St. Bart's its due, but not because they had healing powers. It's because researchers there made key contributions to medical science.

-Jester