betsy

Just like you described it. Insults and criticisms to what you strongly believe in only adds fuel to your fire. Of course, it's understandable that you wouldn't know if you haven't been religious. That's why I'm telling you.

At least I'm glad you feel like a religious person. All these attacks on our beliefs are just adding fuel to our fire.

You're talking of descrimination. You see, this is one of the many problems with liberal moral relativism. A moral standard won't allow for immoral behaviour. Depriving a man of a heart transplant because he's black or because he's gay would be immoral. As a side note, you don't have to condone homosexuality to treat a homosexual as equal to anyone else regarding medical procedures. It's only in the minds of those who believe that morality can be changed in order to suit themselves that such an argument can be made. This discussion is about whether a doctor is required to go against his moral beliefs to perform a medical procedure that he belives is immoral, specifically killing a fetus; that is, a child. If a doctor believes that blacks, or homosexuals, or women, or whatever, are not worthy of treatment, that goes against any MORAL STANDARD I know. So he's not making a moral decision - unless you believe that descriminating against particular groups becomes his morality because he chooses to do it. That would be moral relativism wouldn't it? In other words, you're not talking about his moral behaviour, you're talking about his immoral behaviour.

First of all, how do you know what really transpired...and what was exactly said in his office that day? Were you there? How do you know that Gish had really no intention of giving the information of an alternative? Just because the woman was the one who first brought it up doesn't necessarily conclude that he was not going to mention it, especially when there was already a previous incident. That is not a proof! That is an assumption! You're assuming that he has no intention at all of divulging that information! Second, you're pinning your conclusion based on the claims of only one side - the woman. An apology is usually an admission of guilt. But of course you wouldn't care....since you've already made up your mind and decided that he is guilty. Of course it matters! You said it yourself. You don't know. And you said it in your previous post: we don't know what happens behind closed door. For all you know Gish could've raised a stink with the hospital for not protecting his rights, AND the rights of patients, by not providing the services that would've ensured all rights of alll parties are accomodated according to law! There are a lot of possible scenarios that could happen behind closed doors. You're just focusing your assumption in one direction. I could just as easily assume - that if it was deemed that Gish was truly the one who screwed up - don't you think the hospital would've at least forced him to issue an apology, that perhaps an apology would've sufficed to diffuse this controversial situation and prevent a lawsuit? The first sentence is right. But the following two sentences do not follow. The fact that the hospital implemented a new policy for dealing with rape victims is an admission that the care this patient received was unacceptible. That the hospital failed in its responsibility. And is now correcting that mistake! And the Good Samaritan Hospital's owners had decided to do something to bring it up to ethical standard. What do you expect the hospital's owners to say? Of course there will be a lot of PR talk! Because if your doctor hid important information from you, you'd just laugh it off? Smells like a rat? Please elaborate on this theory. I'm interested to see where you're going with this. -k Well, as I said....I COULD also say my suspicion is that..... Like you, I could also just as easily and recklessly make my own conclusions based on mere assumptions.. I am only pointing out that we could all have our own interpretation, sumation, assumption, what-ifs, and hunches about this thing! And we could just as easily direct and mould them to fit the picture of what we want to see!

Thank you so much, Scott. I've started writing again, setting aside an hour a day.

Or busy training overseas! Golly, did I say training????....I mean busy touring overseas

Nothing new with this one. It's just re-cycled opinion, which was already answered on my post #169.

No, I am not included in that "we". One thing I'm sure though...that's what you say you know. What makes you conclude that he screwed up? Did he issue an apology? Was he penalized already? Suspended? Fired? Found guilty of screw up and fined? Given a sentence? That might be an opinion, but it is not a fact unless you can prove it.

So you say. But I base my reasoning on this: Yes a lot of possibilities and "perhaps." Along with my perhaps that there might even be an on-going court case about this. Therefore another perhaps that we haven't seen the end of this. And that perhaps we see a conviction stating that Gish was wrong....or an acquittal, that reiterates his rightful action. Which brings another perhaps that we may yet see some changes or re-defining or refining of the Conscience Clause. Quite true! We can do all the speculating we want. I could also say my suspicion is that the raped woman could be making a mountain of a mole-hill, using her alleged rape in the name of women's rights. Because my suspicion is that this seem smells like a rat of a women's rights fight actually!

It doesn't.You keep saying "conscience clause! conscience clause!" The conscience clause gave him the right not to perform an abortion (and by extension, administer a morning after pill.) The conscience clause in Pennsylvania applies ONLY to performing an abortion. It does not excuse him from any other duties a doctor has to a patient. It seems to me that *you* are the one who is engaged in wishful thinking, each time you say "oh, if only the hospital had provided this service or that service, then poor Dr Gish wouldn't have been put in this position!" Well, the hospital didn't. Tough luck for Dr Gish, but he's still got ethical responsibilities. Even your ethics discussion from Ascension Health agrees that the patient needs to be informed of her options. The patient left the hospital without being given the information she needed to make decisions about her own care. That's Gish's fault. He was her doctor. Ultimately he's responsible for the care she receives. It's not a question of whether he broke the law, it's a question of whether he lived up to his ethical responsibilities as a doctor. And you don't have to be a lawyer to recognize that he failed to live up to the responsibilities a doctor has to his patient. -k The answer is right there in that post. *BIG HINT*: Was Gish penalized or fired? Considering this is the second "offense?" If not, WHY IS THAT, I'm asking? The only thing I know, according to the article you've provided, is that the hospital finally did something about it....not by firing Gish, as I understood....but by ensuirng the patients have all the medical information they need. As I said, maybe there is an on-going litigation about this. But so far, I get the impression from your article, and from the article of Cybercoma that Gish was not fired, penalized, nor did he had his license revoked. This whole post is just your one big opinion of the matter. It still falls under the category of "wishful thinking and speculations" but with nothing of substance to back it up other than hunches and assumptions. So there is nothing new. And yes my answer to Cybercoma covers this as well. Read again. Whatever assumptions I may have about the matter, however, are backed by the Conscience Clause, which is by no means a figment of my imagination.

By decisions, I assume you mean "medical decisions". We should be talking generally here. Because some doctors have allowed other things besides their religion to "guide them" in their decisions. There is something wrong when it is the patient who dictates the decision that she/he thinks the doctor has to make. How many times do you hear someone says, "I have this cough. I have to see my doctor and get some anti-biotics." Who made the decision that she/he really do need and should be given anti-biotics? My doctor is not big on anti-biotics. He wouldn't give me any, unless it is REALLY necessary! He'd say....ahh, you don't really need it! And I see the good point in his decision. If I take anti-biotics for every crappy little discomfort I feel, soon those anti-biotics will not work for me when I do really need them the most! But some doctors have no issue about prescribing anti-biotics willy-nilly! How about doctors who issue steroids and pain-killers (like the doctor of Benoit or Anna Nicole Smith)? Their decision you think was guided by some religion? I would say it is safe to bet that in most cases, it is not the doctor who voluntarily offered to give steroids or unwarranted pain-killers, but that the doctor was either persuaded, coersced or nagged by a demanding patient to write the prescription. And this brings about your point, which I think is inaccurate. It should've said: The point is doctors allowing religious mythology and patients to guide...or in some cases, dictate to their decisions. As for abortions, who's to say that a doctor's refusal did not also include the fact that he believes abortion does some harm, not only to the fetus, but to the patient herself? For if indeed the woman has no desire to raise a child, the option of carrying the baby to full terms and giving it up for adoption may be a better alternative thatn having an abortion that may complicate matters health-wise for the patient? Do we know more than a doctor? Anyway, how many women had died because their doctors refused to give them abortions and morning-after pills....and how many people died because their doctors succumbed to their pleas and prescribed them steroids and painkillers? If you would use that reason regarding doctors allowing their decisions to be guided by something other than their better judgement, I think you're quite off-track here. Your outrage should be directed to doctors like Benoit's....who most possibly caused Benoit's death. Including that of his family. Doctors like these ones do not have any ethics at all, nor do they care about their oaths. These are the ones you should be ranting about. I don't know why they're so conveniently overlooked. Unless perhaps, in the usual lefty oblique way of seeing reason....you see nothing wrong with it.

I'm not trying to argue one way or another whether he has a right to refuse, I'm arguing whether he should have the right to refuse. Put it this way, homosexuals have the right to marry. Does that mean you are perfectly Ok with homosexuals getting married? Or will you continue to argue that homosexuals should not have the right to marry? Homosexuals have the right to marry. Whether I think they should have the right to marry doesn't enter into it...and I know that you know, as far I'm concerned I think they should not have been given that right, since they've had that right anyway in the first place. But that's another story. However, that being said...I have to accept and recognize that under the law, they do have the right to marry. Because that is a fact now. They were given that right. I still may not believe in their "marriage"...but still, my belief doesn't change the fact that they've been given that right. They are free to exercise that right under the law. Thank God that the court had deemed to still protect my right to religious belief, for now at least....while at the same time accomodating the rights of gays. Thank God that I can still exercise my right to choose though....whether or not to attend a gay wedding.

While the conscience clause excuses him from having to perform an abortion, I have seen nothing that indicates it relieves him of the responsibility for providing the patient with information she needs to make decisions regarding her care. So that's it? Hospitals fault; the doctor has no obligation to his patient? I don't accept that. The "conscience clause" might excuse him from performing an abortion, but it doesn't excuse him from other obligations he has to his patients. The fact that the 20 year old left the hospital with no counselling and no information regarding her own treatment falls on his shoulders. Why? Because he was her doctor. A doctor doesn't shrug his shoulders and say "not my department". If a doctor doesn't have the skills his patient needs, he's supposed to refer her to someone who does, not shrug his shoulders and send her on her way. Bottom line is that this guy failed his patient, conscience clause or not. I tire of the ongoing effort to excuse his ignorance. -k See my reply to Cyber. It neatly goes for this as well. Now I'm getting dizzy with this circling around. If you guys don't have anything new to bring up....I'll just keep referring to my previous responses. After all, one size fits all (of your opinions, assumptions, hunches, et al)!

Whether they believe in mythology or crap is not the point. If the law says they have the right to do so, then they should be able to. That's the whole point. You're saying, if they had believed in something that is not based on what you define as "supernatural mythology", their actions would've been justified! You are refusing to acknowledge their legal rights simply because their idea of a belief is just plain supernatural mythology, according to you. That to you, their religion is nothing more based on superstition. That is your belief. You are imposing your belief! Unless the law says otherwise, whether they believe in superstition or not, the law says they have that right! Then that is something for the court to decide! I am not a lawyer. The way I see it, it is the hospital that was neglectful and responsible! The hospital should have ensured the protocol was adhered to. The hospital should have known better. Since this is the second incident involving Gish, you'd think he should've been suspended or fired by now IF he had done anything against the Conscience Clause. But it seems obvious why he is still working in that hospital. Maybe it's because the law says he cannot be fired! Gish had been a victim of this hospital's neglect as well - he did not have to be placed in this highly publicised situation, demonized, and have to defend himself just for practicing the right that he legally and lawfully have! If I were Gish, I would sue the hospital for its neglect in protecting my rights and for putting me through this situation, with added unreasonable stress, having my name bandied about and my reputation being smeared! For what? Just for having the gall to avoid going through my own painful ethical dilemma based on my belief, and for exercising my legal rights to refuse But like I've said, I'm not a lawyer. Your article is not complete for it lacks the version or the side of Gish. It's all pretty much one-sided at this point, mostly relying on the woman's version. Who knows if what she says is accurate...since it is possible her interpretations of events could've been muddled by trauma! If there is any negligence or breaking of the law, then it is for the court to decide that. Who knows, maybe there's already some litigations going on about this, I would assume so being it is such a controversial issue.. That is when all the details will come out regarding this incident. We'll surely hear whatever the outcome is...being so controversial and all. UNLESS of course the courts had decided there is no case at all with regards to Gish! Because of obvious reasons citing the Conscience Law! Let's quit going around in circles here. It is tiring. I've explained the whole point. THE FACT! Not some wishful thinking, "what-ifs", assumptions or hunches, or off the wall opinion. All I've given is point out the fact about the right of this doctor that exists according to the law! That is not giving an opinion. That is just stating what already exists! I'm just repeating what the law says. Numerous times. As simple as possible. If you still cannot grasp it, then I throw my hands up in the air. I give up. What's the point? You'll never get it.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Although I do realize the cause for concern with this article you've provided regarding the case of Applebaum, I do have to comment however on your obvious ignorance regarding the particular issue that we're discussing, the case of Dr Gish. Obviously you've jumped in lashing and ranting without really understanding, and perhaps without even reading all of the exchanges we've been having. First of all, although they both seem to bear the same ground - that of refusing care because of religious belief - they are not however, comparable with one another. Note that I have used the word "seem", for I am not sure if indeed religion was at the root of the Muslim's doctor's case. I am not familiar with the case. I do not want to fall into the trap of blindly and rashly concluding a person's guilt because of his race or ethnicity. Even though - and especially - when we have this problem with terrorism. It is easy to become prejudiced. But assuming that the Muslim doctor did refuse care because of his religious belief, the two cannot be compared with one another. The Conscience Clause stipulates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_Clause_(medical) Solely based on the article/information you've provided, clearly the Muslim doctor gave fraudulent information, and lies and deception were involved. I am not a lawyer. But I think this can be viewed as deliberate murder. This doctor had broken his oath: Saving Lives. Do No Harm. Whereas Gish may have refused to prescribe morning-after pills, and refused to name a referral....his action however, did not cause any death or endangerment of any lives. In fact, in his belief, Gish is performing his oath to the best of his ability. Saving the life of a fetus. Not wanting to harm what he may've believed to be already a human life. The hospital should've made the necessary steps to make sure that the rights of patients are not neglected or compromised, especially when it is stipulated by law that patients' rights to care and information must be ensured. I am not a lawyer, therefore I do not know if loopholes are possible in that clause. I am not sure if the clause I've posted is complete in its entirety (or if it's just the shortened, version in layman's terms). But one thing is clear: you do not get the point I've been saying all along. For the last time, I'll repeat it for your benefit. We may all agree or disagree about Gish's right to refuse. We can only give our opinion on the matter. What I believe or what you believe does not really matter. The fact is: The Conscience Clause - whether you think it's a lefty-lefty hyperbole, or a righty-righty piece of crap - recognizes Gish's right to refuse on the grounds of his religious belief. That the clause may perhaps need some refining to prevent any incidents such as Applebaum's case....that I heartily agree with.

How? If you have the solution, please do share it with us. I am a realist -- really, we cannot kill all the muslims on earth, there are just too many of them. So what indeed should we do Scott? I agree that Islam should be stomped out (ideally all religion should be "stomped out", but let's start with Islam as it is the worst one) I know your question is directed to Scott, but I'd like to give a suggestion. For starters.... First. Let's do away with multi-culturalism. This is for all immigrants from all over the world who comes to Canada. You chose to come here, therefore you live by our laws and our way of life. If you want to keep your culture, do so in the privacy of your home - as long as you are not breaking any laws of this country. It's not us who will change and adjust to you. Second. The burquas and veils must go. And the kirpans! Third. No barbaric protests allowed. If you do want to protest about something, do so in a civilized way. fourth. Anyone caught being involved with terrorism in any way is out of here! If you're Canadian citizens, then consider yourself, ex-Canadian citizens. This will include your whole family. five. Anyone making any threats - include fatwas - will be criminalized under our law. six. Any mosques involved or used for preaching hatred and inciting will be shut down, with no hope whatsoever of being re-opened again. In fact, it will be torn down, and the vacant space be put to good use instead. All imams from that mosque will be kicked out of the country. Any shut down mosque will never be replaced in the area.

How many atheists actually apply as priests? Oh yes they can! On the grounds that obviously, you are not mentally fit to continue as a priest! I can see it now. You're up on the pulpit, waving your hands up in the air, your eyes wild with fervor, screaming: There is no God!!!! tsk-tsk they'll say, shaking their heads in compassion. "Nervous breakdown. The stress got to him." And if you're lucky, they might even go for the Good Ol Samaritan routine and have you committed to a quality looney bin with the best of care. At their expense!

Only if it interferes with their ability to do their job. I could claim that working hard is against my religion, but employers can't discriminate against me because that is my religion, so employers should have to hire me even if I refuse to work hard? No, they don't have to hire you. They can come up with other excuses why they would not hire you....but most likely they'd never even think of citing your religion as the reason why they won't. It's easier for them to lie or be tactful or diplomatic in turning you down. That is, if they don't want any hassles. But there are some who don't mind the hassles, however. And it should give you pause and have you wonder why is that? It is one very confident employer indeed - someone who probably wants to prove a point - that would tell you flat out that he won't hire you because of your religion. And I'd bet this kind of employer would look forward to see you challenge him in court! Perhaps, because he knows there is such provision in law that protects the employers and companies' interest since these employers and companies create jobs...and, after all, losing productivity will eventually affect the economy? Usually, people who confidently give statements that come across as provocative, do so because they know something that gives them that confidence. In the case of Gish - that confidence came from the Conscience Clause - knowing he's got the right to refuse on the grounds of his religious belief.

So, even though the law recognizes and had granted Dr Gish his right to refuse on the grounds of religion, you still refuse to recognize and respect his right? Am I correct in assuming that is your opinion on the matter?

Wow, now there's a statement, talk about fascist atheism, silence anyone you don't agree with. All people have a right to a voice in a democratic society. Just shows you the kind of "level-headedness" they have. These types are the real scary ones. Because unlike the religious who have at least a set of standards of morality to follow....the atheists' morality fluctuates. Instead of changing the behaviour, they'd mold and change the moral values to suit them.

My prediction is that the core of Europe will move from excessive toleration a la Wiemar to Holocaust mode. It won't be pretty. That's what I think too. The pendulum will shift the other way. From one extreme to the other. And yes, it will be ugly.

Is Dr. Gish breaking the law by refusing to prescribe morning after pills? No. Is a doctor breaking the law by stealing one of your kidneys? Yes. See the difference? Yes I do see the difference. The difference that some refuse to acknowledge and respect a right given by the law, and yet would demand that the law be respected and followed! See the contradiction? You are not answering my question. I am not asking what you think should be. I am asking, now that you know about the Conscience Clause, do you now agree that the doctors indeed have the right to refuse on the basis of religious belief?

Don't be silly, doctors still have to obey the law. The law???? Why, some posters here would rather Dr Gish not practice his right - that was given by the law! So now, you're talking about the law?? Anyway, with this Conscience Clause, do you now agree that doctors have the right to refuse based on religious grounds? Answer this question and we're back discussing...otherwise, we're through on this thread.

I don't think I would want a doctor working on me who didn't base his treatment on personal beliefs and ethics. Me too! Heaven forbid I might end up loosing a kidney to some doctors who believes it's immoral for me to have two healthy kidneys (while people are dying on a long waiting list), and that I therefore, should share! Or because some rich guys handed him some cash under the table! Or worse, a doctor whose values, ethics and morals shifts like a pendulum at whim, deciding that it is for the better that I be euthanized, with or without my permission. I'd choose a doctor who takes seriously the oath of 'Do No Harm" and "Saving Lives" - all the more when a doctor is prepared to stand before the courts defending what he regards a human life (such as the fetus) even though society had chosen to revoke this status and re-defined the fetus to nothing more than just a thing.

Beliefs of any kinds (whether they be from religion, atheists, agnostics or whatever), morals of any kind (whether they be from religion, atheists, agnostics or whatever), doesn't and shouldn't offer a person complete freedom to do whatever the hell they please that goes against the law. That includes vandalism for example, the anti-poverty protesters taking over the office of a government official in BC, or endangering the lives of others for example Green Peace against the whale hunters. But that's another topic. We're talking about the Conscience Clause regarding religious belief in healthcare and patients' rights. Unless the law says otherwise, I guess we'll just have to learn to accept that healthcare workers do have the right to refuse on the grounds of religious belief. As a suggestion, perhaps patients who do not believe or agree with the values and beliefs of a religious order - in this case, the CATHOLIC Religion- should CHOOSE to avoid going to a Catholic Hospital. And perhaps hospitals should specify clearly and exactly what they are (Catholics, Non-religious, Moral relativists), so there can be no misunderstanding whatsoever. Heavens, hospitals should avoid getting sued for false advertisement or mis-representation! Here, sign on the dotted line, acknowledging that you know that this is a Catholic Hospital and here is the list of what we do not do in this facility. Enter at your own risk!