betsy

Write what you enjoy. Publishers are looking for the next J.K Rowling! At the moment, I am fielding enquirers in Los Angeles for one of my scripts. It is one I completed a few years ago and for some reason is attracting attention now. We'll have to see how it goes. I don't usually get too excited until the check clears. When I finish a novel, I hear the hardest part would be to get a publishing house to even consider reading it. I am dying to ask you about those feature fims you were involved with...but I know it might expose your identity. Canadian publishing houses are mainly interested in what government grants they can get for the work - not the quality of the work. Get yourself a grant and you'll get published, regardless of what dreck you write. How do I go about getting a grant? Who can point me in the right direction? I'm serious. Reputable agents I'm told, give you the time of day only when you've been published. Although I do have proofs of my works in publication (I've brought copies of the comic books - more for reminiscing enjoyments), I don't think they really count here as the standard they mean by "published."

Why do we have to provide justification for a right that we have? Should blacks have to justify why they have the right to be treated equally as any other citizens in a democratic society? A right is a right! Evidence or not, superstitions or not, by citing religious belief is justification enough, in Gish's case!

Since the facility is a hospital, I guess it falls on the hospital's responsibility to see to it that the rights of patients are not neglected, and at the same time the religious rights of healthworkers in that hospital are recognized - just as the law said it should. Most especially that there had been a previous incident of the same nature. One would think that rectifying the problem would've been most practical...considering costly lawsuits and bad publicity. Had there been a rape counsellor, or someone assigned to see to that job of giving accurate information, alternatives and referrals....Gish would not have found himself in this awful situation of having to defend himself and his belief. Why should he have to defend his refusal based on religious ground? He has that right! The Conscience Clause gave him that right! I think it is unfair to both Gish and the women the way the hospital seemed to have been lax about this. I do not find fault with Gish, based on the right that the law had given him. But I do find fault with the hospital. The hsopital failed to protect its employees - in this case, Gish - from having to deal with this situation, and it had failed to provide what the law says should be rightfully given to a patient. If Gish had his own private practice, it falls on his shoulders to ensure that the rights of his patients are respected, and that his clinic fully abide by the law. If he has to hire someone to assume the responsibility of a rape counsellor, complete with providing medical information, alternatives and referrals... he should. That's what the law dictates.

Is this not against consumer law? This is indeed worrisome....a lot of Chinese products had been recalled in the past due to lead content.

And I think it is a good idea to have rape counselling services available. Like I've said, I was only relying on the article that was provided. At least this latest article you've given irons that wrinkle out. "Assholes" will be assholes. And I speak generally. I don't think any profession is immuned from having them. Like I've said to Cybercoma: if one feels so strongly about it, bring it to court. Have it legislated. It's not about whether we agree with it or not, or whether we practice the same belief. The law -Conscience Clause - so far, gives doctors like Gish the right to refuse on religious ground. That is just stating a simple fact. All we know of Gish is his profession, his religious belief regarding abortion, etc., and his two encounetrs with this women. I don't know anything about his personality. Who knows, maybe he's one those loose canons. That's why I find it surprising that in this day and age, he would be so bold in citing religion - that I even interpreted it as being deliberately provocative. For him to deliberately seek that kind of heat only suggests (to me at least), that somehow he feels confident about his rights. For indeed, he could've as easily side-stepped the issue without compromising his belief....and at the same time be able to accomodate the patient. He seems short on diplomacy...and tact. Mind you, let me be clear that I am basing that opinion on the said article you've provided. For in truth, I don't think there is anything explaining Gish's version of events. I must've missed the part that says exactly that. Is Gish suspended then? And replaced by these nurses? Is he not allowed to treat rape victims at all? Relying from that article, by the looks of it....indeed it did. It caused quite a stir anyway. BUT is this "new law" already a law? Or are they still waiting for it to be approved or passed?

I was raising the high possibility that the rape counsellor is a hospital staff, basing it from what I can deduce from the article. The way the article was written indicate the possibility. And the fact that the first place a rape victim would be most likely to go would be at an emergency hospital or medical facility...before she goes searching for a rape counsellor! You on the other hand think of the other possibility, that she went to the rape counsellor first...who then adviced her to go to the hospital and have herself treated. I see no evidence supporting your theory either. Which of these two assumptions (yours or mine) do you think is the most likely and practical and realistic scenario....unless the raped victim was so traumatized that she was not thinking sensibly? Just to be clear, if you were taking a practical test, and the question is this: You were just raped. What is the practical first step you have to do? a. Go to the emergency hospital b. Look for a rape counsellor c. Take a shower Which one do you think is the best answer? The one that lawyers and cops always advice you to do - keeping in mind about preservation of physical evidence(s) should you seek to file criminal charges??? The rape counsellors are usually in medical facilities! That the 20 year old victim had to go to another place to obtain the treatment, it does not mean she did not get the required information from the hospital where Gish works. In fact, it only supports my theory and that this could be normal protocol procedures since this recently raped woman was assisted by the rape counsellor in finding a doctor that would provide the pills! Although she had to go to another doctor to get the pills, who gave her the information about the existence of such pills, and the name of a willing doctor?? The rape counsellor! Anyway, here's a source that gives support to my statement that counsellors are usually in medical facilities.

Yes, it's from Ascension Health. Nevertheless, there is such a thing as a CONSCIENCE CLAUSE recognized by law. "Conscience clauses are clauses in laws in some parts of the United States which permit pharmacists, physicians, and other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. Those who choose not to provide services may not be disciplined or discriminated against. The provision is most frequently enacted in connection with issues relating to reproduction, such as abortion, sterilization, and contraception, but may include any phase of patient care. Conscience clauses have been adopted by a number of U.S. states. including Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. See also "[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_Clause_(medical) "STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF As of JUNE 1, 2007 BACKGROUND: Almost every state has a policy explicitly allowing some health care professionals or certain institutions to refuse to provide or participate in abortion, contraceptive services or sterilization services. Even in states without explicit refusal statutes, an individual health care professional’s actions may be legally protected by statutes prohibiting discrimination against employees, based on their religious objections. While some of the institutional policies are limited to private, or even religious, health care institutions, others apply to all institutions providing health care. (At the federal level, health care institutions and providers may refuse to participate in abortion services on the basis of their religious or moral beliefs.) A few states have enacted laws that specifically allow pharmacists or pharmacies to refuse to provide health care due to religious or moral objections. Several other states have broadly worded refusal clause statutes that might protect pharmacists or pharmacies from liability for their refusal. (See Emergency Contraception.) HIGHLIGHTS: 46 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide abortion services. All of these states permit individual health care providers to refuse to provide abortion services. 43 states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide abortion services, 15 limit the exemption to private health care institutions and 1 state allows only religious health care entities to refuse to provide such care. 13 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception. 8 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception 4 states explicitly permit pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives. (4 additional states have broad refusal clauses that do not specifically include pharmacists, but may apply to them.) 1 state explicitly permit pharmacies to refuse to dispense contraceptives. 4 states have broad refusal clauses that do not specifically include pharmacies, but may apply to them. 9 states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide services related to contraception, 6 states limit the exemption to private entities. 17 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide sterilization services. 16 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to provide sterilization services. 15 states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide sterilization services; 4 limit the exemption to private entities. " Note: taken from Guttmacher Institute I was raising the high possibility that the rape counsellor is a hospital staff, basing it from what I can deduce from the article. The way the article was written indicate the possibility. And the fact that the first place a rape victim would be most likely to go would be at an emergency hospital or medical facility...before she goes searching for a rape counsellor! You on the other hand think of the other possibility, that she went to the rape counsellor first...who then adviced her to go to the hospital and have herself treated. I see no evidence supporting your theory either. Which of these two assumptions (yours or mine) do you think is the most likely and practical and realistic scenario....unless the raped victim was so traumatized that she was not thinking sensibly? Just to be clear, if you were taking a practical test, and the question is this: You were just raped. What is the practical first step you have to do? a. Go to the emergency hospital b. Look for a rape counsellor c. Take a shower Which one do you think is the best answer? The one that lawyers and cops always advice you to do - keeping in mind about preservation of physical evidence(s) should you seek to file criminal charges??? The rape counsellors are usually in medical facilities! That the 20 year old victim had to go to another place to obtain the treatment, it does not mean she did not get the required information from the hospital where Gish works. In fact, it only supports my theory and that this could be normal protocol procedures since this recently raped woman was assisted by the rape counsellor in finding a doctor that would provide the pills! Although she had to go to another doctor to get the pills, who gave her the information about the existence of such pills, and the name of a willing doctor?? The rape counsellor! Check the States Policies In Brief above. And see the date on it. http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566 Which only support what I've observed before: Gish seem too confident in boldly citing religion....which in this day and age is surely like waving a red flag to a bull. I made a mistake in that score. However, it doesn't change anything from my argument...or the facts cited regarding Conscience Clause.

Cybercoma, this is just an observation and in no way meant to be an insult. And this is not to stop you from posting. You have posted numerous topics that clearly explains how you feel about religion and God. You have joined numerous debates and had clearly and repeatedly explained how you feel about religion and God. In practically all these debates and discussions you've cited numerous sources too. And now, another topic, titled: I Believe That There Is No God. Cybercoma, you've somehow presented another angle. And you may not even be aware of it. But unconsciously.... Are you trying to convince yourself?

That doesn't look like an attempt, they drove a car bomb into a building it seems from the BBC news update I just watched. Just lucky it didn't go as planned. The police are saying the UK is under attack, and are begging everyone to exercise restraint in reacting against the Muslims. Sounds like quite the trouble. Yes. I just saw the update too. The guy driving the car was really trying to bring the car as close to the terminal as possible. One witness said that the driver doused himself with gasoline. So far it's pure luck that they all failed. The UK is now under critical alert. They're expecting more attacks.

My own personal beliefs does not enter into this. Whether I respect the doctor's beliefs or not does not matter. My feelings cannot change the facts. I am only stating what is clearly there. The law recognizes the healthworkers' freedom of religion, and at the same time it also recognizes the rights of patients! What I've stated is not based on hunches, or assumptions...or "what-ifs". Like Sully says, you are arguing with your emotions! You strongly diasgree. Well you can have your indignation and be appalled by our sensible responses, and scream, protest, and have your bloody fit! But the fact still remains....the law of Pennsylvania does not agree with you. You can try to change things if you feel so strongly. Challenge it in court!

DOCTOR VS. BURGER GUY Hmmmmmm........lets see a vegetarian serving burgers at mcdonalds, I would hazard a guess and say that they would have many workers who are vegetarian and still serving burgers. Now lets look a little bit deeper, a vegetarian is someone who by choice does not eat meat, Some vegetarians say that they can't even stand the smell of cooking meat! When I go to McDonald's, I'll surely know a vegetarian employee when I see one, and I'll choose not to be served by him/her. How can I tell? The mask. Dead give-away!

Another possible terrorist attempt in Glasgow airport today. I don't know the details, but they've cancelled all flights and closed down the airport. Blair just stepped down, and Brown just stepped in. Brown is a "softie" compared to Blair. Are the terrorists testing how Brown will react?? What happens when Bush steps down?

I do not fault the raped woman for being upset. She's just been through a very traumatic experience...therefore she may see things quite differently, and lashing out could be the result of this trauma.

I don't think it's a matter of hiding information. Perhaps knowing that he works in a hospital, and perhaps knowing that it is part of the job of the rape counsellor to provide the necessary information to all rape victims admitted to that hospital....he knows that the woman was already informed by the counselllor - and she was duly informed indeed. For all we know, this rape counselllor is the equivalent of your "patient advocate"......someone who is not hampered by any religious belief. In order to accomodate the religious freedom of health workers, and at the same time protect the rights of patients...I think it only practical to assume that any hospitals wanting to avoid any costly lawsuits and controversies would do everything possible to follow the law and protocol. I don't think this incident with Dr Gish resulted in any new bill for Pennsylvania. If I'm not mistaken, this incident with Gish happened only recently. There was a case however in 1989 BROWNFIELD vs FREEMAN Hospital that might have been responsible for some changes. That's why I've said, Gish knows his religious rights are protected under the Conscience Clause (because of a previous court ruling - Brownfield v Freeman Hosp(?))....AND most probably knows the hospital had already taken steps to ensure that the law is followed....that's why Gish was confident enough to flatly cite religion as his reason.

I agree with the doctor to fight for his belief....especially when he knows that the law recognize his rights. I agree that if it were me in this doctor's shoes....I would've done the same thing and be honest about it that my religious belief does not allow me to give the said prescription. It is up to the woman if she wishes to seek another doctor. By being honest and frank, I made her see clearly where she stood with me: no morning pills coming out from my prescription. Now whether I think she should carry and give birth to this child or not is of no relevance to this topic at all. After all, she did not ask the doctor whether he thinks it is right to keep the child or not. As far as I know from your article, no such consultations or discussions had occurred. Why do you want to know if I believe in his belief, a belief which you say "that this woman should carry that child for 9 months and deliver that baby?" What's the purpose of knowing what my belief is? I need to know since what you're asking really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. And I notice you avoided my questions, which has something to do with this discussion since you were the one who brought this kind of reasoning...and using it as the major thrust of your argument. So why don't you answer them?

Right now we can all sit back and bask in our false sense of security. But while we sip our margaritas, let us watch what unfolds in England. We may learn a valuable thing or two from their mistake, and maybe we'll have the time and scramble to rectify the problem with this stupid multi-culturalism.

Write what you enjoy. Publishers are looking for the next J.K Rowling! At the moment, I am fielding enquirers in Los Angeles for one of my scripts. It is one I completed a few years ago and for some reason is attracting attention now. We'll have to see how it goes. I don't usually get too excited until the check clears. When I finish a novel, I hear the hardest part would be to get a publishing house to even consider reading it. I am dying to ask you about those feature fims you were involved with...but I know it might expose your identity.

Thank you for those tips, Scott. I'm re-organizing my schedules to fit a fixed and definite time for writing along with my two home-based businesses....and of course to include a time for the forum too.

I think this is pretty much true. Muslim aggression towards the west is there. We can close our eyes and pretend it does not exists, and rant at those who try to point undeniable facts instead. But who are we kidding? When it blows up, it will be ugly for everyone...including and especially with muslim moderates. Just take a look at England. Right now it is one of the most "tolerant" countries in the world. It resembles us. So it is curious to see how the temperament of their public remains steadfastly tolerant as its problems with terrorism starts to escalate. How will they deal with it? An English spokesman had said the people carry on as usual. That the people had faced the blitz during WW2. But can you compare the war in WW2 to this kind of war...when your enemies are within? They had recently found and diffused two car bombs in the theatre districts - an entertainment section. Is there a code of ethics among terrorists - although their aim is to cast fear and shock to the world - to stay away from schools and daycare centers, I wonder? The public's clamor to pull out of war goes higher as the death toll of its soldiers climb up. They can't stomach death...even though we all know, it naturally comes with war. I wonder what their clamor would be once the death toll of its own civilians in its own soil starts going up in numbers?

I'm glad to see that we all share the same view about this. And guess what. After growing up playing with toy guns....I am actually sqeamish about holding real firearms. My husband taught me how to load and use a rifle....just in case I need to defend myself, he said. That was years ago. Now, I am unsure if I'd remember how to do it properly...but I'm not telling him... he might give me lessons again.

It's not the immigrant's fault if he practices his culture in a society that says and encourages that he practice his culture. "Multi-culturalism" is how the left-wing want to sell Canada! And I believe multi-culturalism will be our downfall. For McGuinty to even consider the possibility of Sharia Law being acceptable in our society is really what's scary! I feel standing on shaky ground. Shows you that all it takes is to have someone with the authority and power to tweak our system.

What if? Well, with the way things are going in our society right now, it would be likely that sooner or later, doctors like Gish will be a rarity....and practically all doctors will be raring to go for the dreaded fetus, with every available arsenals they could use! So I don't think you have anything to worry about on that score. Well obviously the law of Pennsylvania doesn't agree with you. The law also recognizes the individual's right to follow his religious belief. That's why a protocol was established....to accomodate the rights of the patient and the rights of the doctor. As long as the doctor did as the protocol dictates, and did not breach it in any way....he's allowed to do what he did.

I don't have any toys that resembles a gun....not because I don't want to....but because it's better for me - business-wise - not to make any provocative controversial statement. But one thing I noticed though, a child will conjure up a gun- whether it be just his finger, or a stick, or leggos - and say "bang! bang! I shot you!" I do not however, restrict any child from bringing his own toy gun, unless it got small parts that could make babies choke. This morning a little 3 year-old boy had brought a little toy gun. He's excited to play with it outside later, and in his excitement he told another parent about this toy gun. I was in the washroom with another child at the time, but I could hear this parent asking "why do you want to play with a gun? why did you bring a gun?" If any parent ask me point-blank why I'd let toy guns in the house, I'm prepared to say: why not? What's wrong with that? I've played with toy guns in my childhood. I imitated the tv war series COMBAT. We played cops and robbers! How about you?

I suggest that you read the article I posted about that court case....and the Conscience Clause. This court case happened in Pennsylvania....the same state where your article happened.

Cybercoma, just read your statements again. It's not making any sense. I'm sure if it was your wife we're talking about....you wouldn't just accept the doctor's refusal to give a morning after pill! To do so would be stupid (since you don't believe in any God or religion at all)! Not only will your wife have that rapist's seed growing in her belly for 9 months, and go through the agony of birthing.....but most importantly, you, as her husband will go through the agony of raising and being the parent of your wife's rapist's child! We're no longer talking of months! We're looking at years! Knowing what could happen, will you just do nothing, and let a doctor's religious belief stop you from doing what you think is best in your situation? If you are an atheist, why would you let a religious belief saddle you with your wife's rapist's child? What do you care about a religious belief?