"Moral refusal" to provide care provisions

[Ridryder911]

"In regards to adoption there are many such institutions that provide adoptions, in fact Christian organizations are one of the largest such providers"


You mean the same organizations that say that a child remaining in foster care is better off than being adopted by a gay couple?


The fact remains that in modern medicine, Doctors/Nurses/EMTs etc. are trusted above all other professions across the board. If we started witholding medical information and procedures which patients have a sovereign right to, we become no better than the most backward theological societies in the history of the world. I am a christian, a working EMT and I am going to be a doctor - my faith does not mean I have the right to violate the trust and free medical will of my patients. If someday, one of my patients requested an abortion, I would do it - not because I believe that it is right, but because she has the right to decide what can and cannot happen to her body; and I will be secure in the knowledge that the abortion would be performed in a safe, precise, and dignified environment - not with a clotheshanger over a toilet as could be the case if I refused.

Again spouting things without proof. EMT's and even doctors are NOT trusted above all other professions. In fact when surveyed they are considered next to car salesman, not alike nursing which has been number one or two for the past five years. Ironically nursing focuses on faith and many have Christian studies within their program.

As well in regards to adoption. Adoption is still denied for many reason such as poor finances and racial mixture. Do you realize a non Indian cannot adopt a Native American? Why? To ensure traditional values. You don't see any protest or parades or television segments on this. So yes, I agree a traditional family should be in place as well.

I can assure you I have treated several hundreds "botched" abortions performed by physicians. Inner uterine bleeding, PID to DIC and have yet ever seen or heard of a "coat hanger" abortion. Such left wing rumors love to keep those things alive. If they are going to do such, they would perform it if it was legal or not. Again a display of irresponsibility.

What I have seen personally is where a physician dumped bag full of fetuses on the side of the road and threw gasoline on them an burned them. It was next to my property line. Yes, he was able to keep his license because it was not illegal. If such an occurrence was performed during WWII it would had been compared to Nazi type behavior. Really there is no difference except that we now have made it legal. Our morals and ethics have went to the trash bin.

How can one acclaim it is their faith if they do not honor it?. That is hypocrisy. Speaking and actions are two different things. One can always differ to another physician. I know of many physicians that are ministers as well, they have no problems. I personally have had to refuse a couple of times to participate in procedures. It was not just based upon my faith but because it was wrong both medically and ethically. In such matters physicians were penalized or licensed removed. Yes, legal but unethical and improper.

As well, I have yet seen any time by withstanding in my faith caused any change in care or participation or trust with any patient. Its ludicrous to assume such. Christian means as Christ like which means love. Religion and science can be mixed. I have written thesis on this describing such. Again, look at the names of most hospitals and tell me what they were originally associated with?

R/r 911

 

[EMERG2011]

I respectfully yet strongly disagree. If we are to go down the road of religion, I'd like to turn your attention to the book of Mark, Chapter 12 - verse 17: "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but give unto God, that which is God's."

According to the Harris Research Institute (85% versus nursing 83%), the BBC (92%), and The Market Research Corporation (86%) - Doctors are among, if not always the most trusted profession in the United States, Europe, and Western nations in general.

Secondly, self induced abortion is a documented occurance, which leads to extraordinary health risks for the mother in addition to the abortion of the fetus. For your consideration, I present the following hyperlink from Medical News Today (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/23828.php) describing the use of illegally obtained drugs in aborting a fetus in the State of South Carolina.

It is interesting to see your definition of the term "christian" and your flippant use of hypocracy as an accusation. I believe that being a practitioner of medicine to be one of the greatest manifestations of faith possible. As one, I believe that I am following in Jesus' footsteps, "mending broken bodies" and caring for "the least of these." Now, if you still think me a hypocrite, then there is nothing I can do to change that, but I know that I am right by my God.

In conclusion of my present point, I fully support your right to believe whatever you want to believe -whether it be that Jesus walked, or that the Great Spaghetti Monster is going to come a whisk you away. That being said, as a healthcare provider, you are held to a higher standard, be it the hippocratic oath or the code of your EMS organization. These standards are set by law and by science, not by your diety; and quite frankly are more inviolate than many of the commands of the bible. I fully anticipate you submitting a rebuttal to my post; but before you do let us both recognize this one fact. We are both type A personalities who are completely immovable in our beliefs. We are not going to convert the other on this day, or any other day. Recognizing this, I say, lets let it go.

 

[EMT-P633]

What I have seen personally is where a physician dumped bag full of fetuses on the side of the road and threw gasoline on them an burned them. It was next to my property line. Yes, he was able to keep his license because it was not illegal.

R/r 911

How is this not illegal? I thought all medical biological waste had to be disposed of under controlled measures? Like an incinerator or the like, not a roadside camp fire.

 

[daedalus]

Rid, I think than from your past you have realized religion and family to be more important than your job. But what I think you fail to realize is that Medicine is a practiced art and a calling. Go to a White Coat ceremony or something similar to that extent. The purpose is to induct the person out of the person they were and mark their entrance as a provider of medicine. No longer is it right to ask others to follow your own moral code, you no longer have the option of judging others. You provide the care the patient needs from you. No matter the study, patients trust their physician. They tell them there secrets and expose their bodies to them. You, as the question asker and the person prescribing the treatment hold a degree of power and trust. You have a duty to follow the ethics of your Art.

There are somethings that need to be regulated by law, and partial birth abortion is one of them. It is not right to expose a baby and evacuate their brain case with a metal suction device. However, abortions in the first trimester are a women right. If you as a Christian do not believe so than do not have it preformed on yourself, but do not force your will on others who may have opposing beliefs. And as a provider, do not ask this women intimate questions in her period of weakness and than turn down her plea for help.

And to another poster, Homosexuals have never imposed their will on others. They have never asked you to do anything nor accept anything. They ask for a right to marry, not affect you in any way. The beauty of this country is that you can disagree. You do not have to eliminate other's rights when you do.

 

[Sasha]

Why stop there? Let's refuse to transport and treat people 'cause you don't like their haircut.

 

[firecoins]

Why stop there? Let's refuse to transport and treat people 'cause you don't like their haircut.

I did that once. It was a really bad crewcut. I simply refuse to transport.

 

[Veneficus]

I did that once. It was a really bad crewcut. I simply refuse to transport.

Clearly the person was in dire need of a new barber/surgeon, lights and sirens to the nearest trauma center for definitive care!!!

 

[Sasha]

I did that once. It was a really bad crewcut. I simply refuse to transport.

I once refused a gun shot victim because he had a mullet.. Mullet, really? Honestly people? Let's get outta the 60s please.

 

[RESQ_5_1]

And to another poster, Homosexuals have never imposed their will on others. They have never asked you to do anything nor accept anything. They ask for a right to marry, not affect you in any way. The beauty of this country is that you can disagree. You do not have to eliminate other's rights when you do.

Actually, by receiving the right to marry, Homosexuals impose their rights over me. As a Christian, I find it morally wrong. But, to speak out about it publicly makes me guilty of a hate crime. If I were a pastor and refused to perform a ceremony based on my beliefs, I would be in violation of the law. Where do their rights begin and mine end?

I don't recall any vote taking place. So, that means it was imposed on me by someone else. I don't condone what they do behind closed doors. But, let it stay there.

Regardless, I don't view each person I treat with judgement. I simply treat the condition I'm presented with. And, this is off topic of the original post.

 

[RESQ_5_1]

As a side note, I have nothing personal against homosexuals. I know quite a few and they are some of the best and most caring people I know.

 

[Sasha]

Actually, by receiving the right to marry, Homosexuals impose their rights over me. As a Christian, I find it morally wrong. But, to speak out about it publicly makes me guilty of a hate crime. If I were a pastor and refused to perform a ceremony based on my beliefs, I would be in violation of the law. Where do their rights begin and mine end?

I don't recall any vote taking place. So, that means it was imposed on me by someone else. I don't condone what they do behind closed doors. But, let it stay there.

Regardless, I don't view each person I treat with judgement. I simply treat the condition I'm presented with. And, this is off topic of the original post.

The same could be twisted around. What if I find heterosexuality offensive? Every PDA could be an assault to my eyes and by continuing to show love an affection in public, every wedding ring I see, you are imposing your lifestyle on me.

Live and let live, stop worrying about other people and start worrying about yourself. I wish people would worry more about their own marriage then other people's, maybe the divorce rate would go down.

By the way, I'm heterosexual, I just hate the "Oh, they kiss in public and have the right to marry therefore they're imposing their lifestyle/rights on me" argument ridiculous.

 

[Dobo]

Actually, by receiving the right to marry, Homosexuals impose their rights over me. As a Christian, I find it morally wrong. But, to speak out about it publicly makes me guilty of a hate crime. If I were a pastor and refused to perform a ceremony based on my beliefs, I would be in violation of the law. Where do their rights begin and mine end?

I don't recall any vote taking place. So, that means it was imposed on me by someone else. I don't condone what they do behind closed doors. But, let it stay there.

Regardless, I don't view each person I treat with judgement. I simply treat the condition I'm presented with. And, this is off topic of the original post.

How does homosexuals getting married impose their rights over you? Do you have the right to say who all gets married? I think we are confusing rights with moral objections here. Speaking out that you feel homosexuality is immoral is not a hate crime, it is an act of free speech. Committing a crime against a homosexual simple because they are homosexual is a hate crime. Does a Jew have the right to refuse to allow you to eat pork? No. Does a Hindu have the right to refuse to allow you to eat beef? No. Sometimes you have to practise your own rights and let others practise their rights and simply stay out of it. Like it or not other peoples behaviour is not your right to dictate. As for voting, did you ever vote on the legal limit of alcohol allowed in a person's system to put them over the limit and guilty of drunk driving? No. Did you ever vote to define if cocaine is illegal or not? No.In Canada we vote in our MP's and MPP's into federal and provincial parliament to do the voting for us. Therefore you vote for the person you feel will best represent you in there parliaments. If you don't like any of the candidates you have the right to run yourself. But I feel we are getting rights and moral objection confused here.

 

[EMERG2011]

If we're going down this old beaten path again, could we just lock the thread and get it over with?

 

[firecoins]

If your employer sets up an interfacility transfer where a patient is getting an abortion, your transporting or getting a new job.

If your transporting someone getting married to someone of the same gender, your driving a limo. This is not your forum.

 

[daedalus]

If we're going down this old beaten path again, could we just lock the thread and get it over with?

Well, we could have it locked, or we could end this one in peace. I think good points have been brought up here.

1. No matter your personal opinions or your own moral code, and regardless of the decision you end up making about participating on controversial procedures, you need to balance it against your duty to provide the care the patient seeks from you.

2. At least for now in the United States, you are apparently within your rights as a person to not participate in some medical procedures.

3. While you may have that right as a person, a poll here on EMT life suggests that it may not be ethical to refuse such participation.

4. The above statement (3) is controversial even here.

5. Think for yourself

 

[mcrs41]

No, Care is care

Wouldn't refusal be neglect? If others with your skills were on scene you could choice to not participate, but otherwise I see it as neglect.

 

[TomB]

Smoke the peace pipe.

 

[RESQ_5_1]

In regards to the original thread, I have gone over as many scenarios as possible in my head to find one that would qualify as rendering care that would go against my moral code. I can't think of one. I couldn't think of a single procedure or treatment that I can perform that would violate what I consider to be my moral code.

 

[BossyCow]

First off, most of my political/religious beliefs fall in the moderate to liberal range. I do not believe that my morals are the same as those held by others or that they should be. I believe that society has the right to set up certain laws and as citizens of that society, we have to follow them or face sanctions for our refusal to keep step.

Each of us will face, many times in our lives, instances where our moral code is at odds with society. That could be our tax dollars used to support something we find morally reprehensible, be it a war, capital punishment, abortion, birth control, faith based charities.... it truly doesn't matter about the specifics of the moral outrage. The point is that when your personal moral code and that of your government, employer, school, church, neighborhood, insurance company, local pharmacy etc are at odds, you have to make a choice. You choose to accept the decision of that group, or you choose to remove yourself from the group. Apparently others choose to remain part of a group that is in moral conflict with their beliefs and then whine about it mightily.

If you believe that abortion is murder, and work for a company that provides transport for an abortion clinic, you are compromizing your ethical beliefs for a paycheck. To take that paycheck for weeks, months, years and then suddenly decide that you won't do what you are being paid to do is the same as volunteering for the armed forces and then whining when you have to go fight.

If you find aspects of your job morally offensive, why are you doing that job? Obviously because your need for the paycheck outweighs your moral convictions. You don't get your moral superiority back by griping about how awful it is after the fact.

I have certain morals that I do not compromise on. There are other positions that I hold that do not require the compliance of the rest of the world. There is room in my moral code for the existance of different beliefs and practices. If your own moral code believes that those who are of different beliefs are not deserving of the same level of care as those who agree with you, then working with the general public in a healthcare environment may not be the best place for you. Seek employment in a private service that follows your belief system.

But, once you compromise, you, in my opinion, lose the right to wave your strict moral code as an absolute.

 

[JPINFV]

In the end, this was a non-emergent situation. Just like any other service provider, non-emergent medical transport can be denied at any time for any reason by the company. Personally, I have my doubts as to how an elective abortion would be covered under a certificate of necessity necessary to gain proper reimbursement. Similarly, in the case presented by the OP, it is the providers right to refuse to care for a non-emergent patient. Similarly, it is that person's employer's right to terminate employment.