betsy

Whether she's been violated in the worst way possible or not...this woman did not have to "travel" around as it turned out. Besides, why should the doctor end up the one feeling "violated" just because someone insists the information should come from him. Why do you think the law have this thing called "CONSCIENCE CLAUSE?" That's another key word: HOSPITAL. The kinds of hospitals I know are staffed by more than one person! Given the alternatives that the woman has, and the law's CONSCIENCE CLAUSE....yes, I do, and may I add that it is only based on the information given in your article (which is one-sided so far and may not be accurate as well)...and the article I've posted. And why shouldn't I agree with the doctor's action? Even the courts had recognized that, otherwise there would be no need to have this CONSCIENCE CLAUSE on the basis of religious belief. And obviously this doctor knows about his rights as well. Seeing that this incident also happened in Pennsylvania, I guess the doctor is aware of the clause..and of a similar case in court.

Do you think this woman is going to let that rapist's seed grow inside her for 9 months? Why? Can't she move to act at all??? According to your article, it didn't take her long to decide to find someone else who could give her references. She got back to the sex counsellor - who presumably is in the same hospital building - and she got her doctor of choice.

What is this doctor saying, if not to say that this woman should bear the child of a rapist? By refusing to give her the pill, he is saying that she should bear the child. Stick to the facts! And logic! What are you saying? If I refuse to give you a glass of water, that means I am forcing you to die of thirst???

"Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital In this 1989 federal appellate court case, the plaintiff was taken to Freeman Hospital’s emergency room after being raped. In response to the patient’s request for information about the morning-after pill, the hospital authorities refused to provide such information, believing that they could not, on the grounds that it was a Catholic hospital. Specifically, the hospital did not inform the patient that if she wanted such treatment it must be obtained within 72 hours to be effective. The court reasoned that a patient has the right to make her own decisions regarding treatment, and therefore, adequate disclosure of information must be provided so the patient can make an informed decision. The court concluded that a rape victim who is denied information about access to the morning-after pill may bring a medical malpractice action. This means that liability may arise if the patient can show: 1) that a skilled practitioner would have provided such information and access under similar circumstances; 2) that she would have elected such treatment; and 3) that "damages" (in this case, pregnancy) resulted from the failure to provide such information. In a footnote to its decision, the court indicated that "access" to such treatment could include transfer of the patient to another medical facility or another physician. More critical for Catholic-sponsored hospitals, the court also reasoned that the morning-after pill constitutes the "prevention" rather the than "termination" of pregnancy. It therefore concluded that the conscience clause under the state’s abortion statute did not immunize the hospital from liability for failure to refuse to provide such information. However, since human life begins at conception (fertilization) and not merely after implantation of the embryo, the relevant moral question from the Catholic perspective is not whether or not there is a pregnancy, but whether or not there is another innocent human life to be respected (see Ethical and Religious Directives, n. 45). Those "contraceptive" measures that operate solely through the prevention of implantation are morally equivalent to abortions in Catholic moral theology, and are therefore impermissible under the Ethical and Religious Directives (both then and now). Nevertheless, the court did not accept this moral distinction as relevant for its ruling. If Catholic hospitals face a similar situation, they may ethically, in keeping with the principle of informed consent, include in their protocol for the care of rape victims a requirement that victims be informed that such procedures and drugs can be obtained through their private physicians or non-Catholic facilities, but that Catholic facilities do not use them because they risk causing abortion. The decision to be satisfied with the Catholic facility’s mode of care or to go elsewhere thus remains with the victim [Ashley, B. and K. O’Rourke, Ethics of Healthcare (St. Louis, MO: Catholic Health Association, 1986) 138]. Legal opinion obtained for the Catholic Health Association supports such an approach: It seems rather clear that a decision, based on religious principle, to refrain from performing abortions and sterilizations falls on the "beliefs" side of the [belief-action] dichotomy. It would contravene the separations of Church and State for government to require Catholic health care institutions to violate its principles in favor of a physician or patient who believes otherwise [in Defense of Values (St. Louis, MO: Catholic Health Association, 1984), 15]. The court ruling itself stated that Catholic Hospitals have the responsibility "to provide information concerning, and access to, estrogen prophylaxis for rape victims." [source: Second Appellate district, Brownsfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital, March 2, 1989.] Having said all this, it must be stated that if, after appropriate testing, it can be established with reasonable or moral certitude that the patient has not already conceived, it would then be appropriate for the Catholic hospital to treat the patient with medications that would in these circumstances prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization (see Ethical and Religious Directives, n. 36). Under these strict parameters, so-called "emergency contraception" would be permissible. This is appropriate because rape is not an act of mutual conjugal love. Rather, it is an extremely violent act that should not be confused with the moral obligations attendant to the inherent meaning of conjugal love. Under other circumstances, some of those same medications might function as abortifacients, which then would not be permissible. [For further reading, see: Ashley, B. and Kevin O’Rourke, Healthcare Ethics: A Theological Analysis (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1997), 302-307.] Conscience Clause A conscience clause is a statutory provision that permits individuals or institutions to refuse to provide or to pay for medical procedures on the basis of religious or moral beliefs. While conscience clauses protect the autonomy and religious freedom of health care providers and organizations from liability for refusing to provide or fund some services, they also affect patient access. Thus, conscience clauses should reflect proportionately serious moral convictions and be appropriately balanced so as not to coerce providers to conduct or to pay for objectionable procedures, but also not to discriminate against patients who seek those procedures. As of October 2000, the only two states in which Ascension Health has facilities that have conscience clauses are Illinois and Pennsylvania. Illinois has both a general Healthcare Right of Conscience Act and a specific conscience clause dealing with abortion, the Abortion Performance Refusal Act. Though Pennsylvania does not have a general conscience clause, it has conscience clauses that specifically address the issues of abortion and advanced directives, respectively Title 18, Chapter 32, §3202 and Title 20, Chapter 54, §5409 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes." http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/cases/case9.asp *************************** I think the hospital followed the protocol. The rape counsellor - whom I assume works for the hospital - had given relevant information, and also helped the woman find another doctor.

How can it be said that this raped woman is being forced to carry the baby? What? Just for saying, "No, I don't give morning after pills?" That's termed as "being forced?" Did the doctor give a sermon about morality? As far as I know, all he said was that it goes against his religion. With morning after pills, you have up to 120 hours (five days) to take it, and still prevent pregnancy. If your mother, daughter or wife were brutally raped....would you be wasting time sitting and arguing with the doctor with the woman already distraught, and debate about morality, whether the doctor is right or wrong? If you think you've got a case to pursue in court...then do so. I think the doctor also thinks he's got a point to prove in court...otherwise he wouldn't have pointedly cited religion as the reason.

As applicants for immigration...I say yes. I had a physical test before getting approved to come here. I assume that if I had any serious contagious disease, it would've affected my application. It's only sensible...especially with our healthcare system. In other words, don't approve anyone to come here unless they've passed a medical test. But once they're already accepted and relocated here as immigrants, I don't think it fair to revoke their papers just because they've contracted the disease.

LinkAny immigrant to Canada with any medical qualifications whatsoever (even nurses and orderlies) has signed a declaration stating that they understood that their credentials may not be recognized in Canada and that they had no guarantee of employment in their field. These people came to Canada fully warned and with their eyes wide open. They signed a declaration stating that they understood this. If you buy a used car and the seller pointedly makes you sign a declaration stating that you understand that the car has no guarantee whatsoever, do you have any right to complain if the car breaks down threee months later? Yes. And if I am a doctor....why would I not take whatever is needed so I can practice my profession? Why would they just groan and moan and settle being a taxi driver forever? I'm sure quite a number of competent immigrant doctors had done what was needed to be recognized and be able to practive in the US and Canada. You see a lot of foreign sounding names. It only makes it dubious when one lacks the cofidence to do so. Maybe they know fully well that they won't be able to hack it - qualification and Canadian standard-wise.

Was that directed at me? If you're accusing me and GC of being the same person, you might not want to go down that road, considering how much your posts resemble somebody who got banned from this forum a year back. -k If Betsy is accusing us of being the same person...well, that's probably the best compliment I have received on this forum Thanks Betsy (even though you are wrong). You've got your own style too, GC! Your "character" is very much alive .....and that's a compliment! But I do love teasing you! You really have to be more careful with those hunches, though. Seems to be highly contagious.

Was that directed at me? If you're accusing me and GC of being the same person, you might not want to go down that road, considering how much your posts resemble somebody who got banned from this forum a year back. -k ???? That word "thread" was an error. It should've said "used to be on this board" Even then, you're not the only one who had contributed and had stopped pursuing the discussion on this thread...so it is surprising that you'd jump right out with indignation! What is this? The thread of assumptions???? HUNCHES???? Wait a minute....I get it! Of course you and GC seemed to have problems reading on this thread.....maybe that's why you assumed I was taking a shot at you? But just to make it clear: No, it's not directed at you at all....unless you consider your writing style the same as that of GC - which I don't. You've got your own signature Kimmy style! There! Are we clear now? Gee, talk about sensitive....it must be the heat....

I have several stories that I've begun here (filed away)...but all are unfinished. Some for children and juvenile, a couple possible thrillers. It's just a matter of getting disciplined again to actually sit down at a scheduled time and really finish what I've started. And to get psyched up again. I was used to pressure back then....my stories were being published weekly. I had to produce something to meet the deadline. A few years ago I was thinking of sending and submitting stories to the publication house I used to write for, unfortunately it had closed down (along with the other popular publishing houses of the time), after the people's revolution. What replaced them now produce smutty-types. Thank you for the encouragements. It's working! Just talking about this is firing me up again!

Why do you ask that? Does this statement says new-Canadians only? Is that how you understood this simple statement? "Canada needs change to a new government – a government that will bring accountability to Ottawa, and a government that will get on with addressing the real priorities of ordinary working Canadians and their families. Ordinary people come from all regions and from all walks of life, and in Canada they come from every corner of the earth." http://www.conservative.ca/1004/37992/

How interesting. We both live well, are both married to a nurse (presumably not the same one), and both write for a living. I even used to live in Winnipeg, but don't anymore, which explains why I'm always right in juxtaposition to your always wrong. I used to write too back in the old country as a part-time job. Regularly published. Comics-form. Those days I consider one of the biggest and colorful adventures of my life. But of course the pay wasn't good, and of course I was using my first language. That's what I miss the most, writing. I tried writing here..... but I don't think my English is good enough to be considered for publication.

Well I guess it's understandable to have your wits scattered all over the place after that explosion on your face, ....and since you asked so nicely, I'll break my hasta-la-vista "oath" and patiently point out to you the nearest answer I can grab on this thread that answers your question. Just scroll up a bit on this same page. Here: Post #32 I agree. We should also boycott churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages. I have no problem with that. Because that's just plain common sense to me, don't you think so? In fact, if I remember it right, I actually begged you guys to "boycott" and stay away...far, far away... from the church. If I, with my open and staunch support for traditional Christian religion, would agree to you guys to "boycott" the church that refuses to alter the holy scriptures just so to humor the whims of confused liberal thinkers - that in fact I even called this "boycott of the church" just plain common sense.....I thought it clear that it only follows what I think of boycotting a piddly pharmacy for refusing to sell morning pills! If I think and stated if you don't agree with your doctor, by all means, go to another doctor....it's just the same as with pharmacies, or taxis, or dentists, or restaurants. Boycott away! Use your freedom to choose! Unless you're chained to the doctor's hips, or to the pharmacy's counter or to the taxi's meter, or to the dentist's chair or to the diner's table....unless there's anything that prevents you from leaving - like a gun to your head - then what's stopping you???? Whether you think it is wrong or not does not make any difference unless it's against the law. And yes, boycott means just that. Now, whether other people will follow your advice and avoid this cab or that doctor as well is another story. You can still freely express your ire, protest and do your own "boycott". BUT it still boils down to the same thing: Don't ride that cab or don't go to that doctor. It's really that simple. Btw, you do remind me of someone who used to be on this thread....I just can't remember who. Let me think about it. Now, hasta la vista!

What's with this "WE" stuff? You mean the passenger and the raped woman are not included in this "WE?" Is your "WE" not inclusive? You're not making any sense! Boycott is just a shorter way of saying, "don't ride on that one. Get another one!" So what's the difference? You're getting funnier the more you try to squirm out of it. I've answered this same question in this topic. Besides, there could be other options....like this one: I don't know much about the taxi business, so how would this work? Do you mean if there's a line-up of taxis waiting for passengers the taxi will have to go to the back of the line? Fair enough, but who's going to enforce it? You agreed. You said it was "fair enough." I suggested putting up signs on clinics' doors, "I don't give morning pills." For hospitals, I also suggested posting a list of names of doctors who are willing to do abortions and give emergency contraceptives. Isn't my answer very, very clear? I guess you must be flustered. But me thinks thou dost protests too much. Anyway, hasta la vista.

Yooooo-hoooooo Qc1765, you sneaky rascal, what's with this one? Post #32 I agree. We should also boycott churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages. I have no problem with that. Because that's just plain common sense to me, don't you think so? #37 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=6744&st=30 This is basically saying: get another ride! Or go to another store! Or see another doctor! And you agreed with me. This solution is similar with what I've said about doctors/patients somewhere in this thread. Actually this only shows I am consistent with my reasoning. Now you seem to be saying you don't agree with me regarding this doctor case....and yet you agreed with me on the same principle regarding the cab driver. It is up to doctors to decide what is the best treatment for their patients. In this case, it is pretty clear that (ignoring religion for a second) providing emergency contraceptives to a victim of rape was the best treatment option. It was because of religion, and religion only, that this doctor refused to prescribe emergency contraceptives not because he thought it was the best treatment for the patient. Hmmm.... And since it is you (not me), who adamantly believes and keep insisting these two incidents - doctor/cab driver - are comparable, it seems to me, in that case, you are the one who has a double standard. See what happens when you rely on hunches?

Yeah, no double standard there There's no double-standard at all. You still insist there is because you don't get the point . The difference between this and that had already been explained in one of the posts somewhere on this thread. If you cannot understand it....what can I say? C'est la vie.

I know....people only now are having affairs, Gays only recently became known ..... You don't get it. Sure, affairs are nothing new. But it's the way adulterous affairs are being regarded now that's the difference! How many would've openly indulge in it in the past I wonder? And to involving children too....which is being done quite openly in the situation I have now with my clients. Somebody says it was the no-fault divorce that's opened the door to this. Adultery became acceptable. It's undeniable....the liberalism and relative moralism....and the tenacity of radical groups to assert their will and change society. Various areas of society are simultaneously targetted: traditional religion, education, media and entertainment, government-funded programs (propagandas). It is a well-concerted effort.

You really should get out more. That sort of lasciviousj and sex-focused activiy has been going on for many many years. The only change is that now people talk about it openly. And you know why people now talk about it openly? Because they've been "indoctrinated" and propaganda-ed and di-sensitized into thinking this is all "normal behaviour". Just like that newspaper article -which is a national newspaper read in a lot of households- made it seem like having those slurp rails are admirable assets of the gay bar! In other words, people are so used to these lascivous displays that to them it's just natural! If they repeatedly show you people copulating on those parade floats...soon you'd think copulating in public during a parade is just acceptable and only natural! And that's my point! That's why in my other post where-in I talk of these people committing adultery....and not only that, but getting their children become involved in it too....they think there's nothing wrong at all with what they do! Our morals are going down the drain! Whether you agree with it or not, the fact still remains that the observations of Fatin regarding western morals is echoed by a lot of people in this society!

But indeed, most of what Fatin said echoes the sentiments of a lot of people in our own society. True that Fatin's society got their own problem....nevertheless, her observations could very well come from anyone living in our own society. Several phone-callers on a phone-show responded to a discussion about having a public education system where religion is left at the doorstep. They have no wish to send their children in public schools because they do not agree to the system teaching their children these new moral trends. What can you say when one of the leading national papers in Ottawa featured an article on the front page describing with awe and admiration the "fun creativity" of gays in Toronto....of having this wonderful decadent bar that features "slurp rails!" What is it? You want your male appendage to be slurped...well, just stick it in there and someone will! And we thought we'd seen it all in the lascivous and sex-focused gay pride parades!

Fatin does have many valid concerns relating to the degeneration of the U.S. and including Canada. There is no one to blame for this unfortunate occurrence other than Americans and Canadians themselves, who have ALLOWED and SUPPORTED the Liberalization of both countries. Until citizens of both countries, come to their senses and stop supporting Liberal initiatives, conditions will only worsen. Bull's eye! You hit the nail right on the head! And degenerates we've truly become. I've a mom in my daycare who left her husband for another man. Then, the cuckolded husband started dating another mom in my daycare as well. The only problem is, this other mom is still very much married. Not only is this a merry-go-round in adulterous affair.....but they're dragging their kids with them whenever they have a trysts! This mom is teaching her son to lie as well...to become an accomplice in the betrayal of her husband! How do I know? How can you hide anything from a 9 year old??? Yep...they know that I know....and nobody's even ashamed of it! But this is just common these days! These parents truly believe that what they do is only quite natural!

Well, with whom am I kibitzing here regarding political parties??? The bantering was a Cons vs Libs! You may say you don't believe in any of the mainstream parties....yet you only took notice of MY so-called "parroting!" Your focused responses to me say otherwise. Mind you, I don't blame you.....after repeatedly being duped and repeatedly being lied to for 13 loooooong years (and seems still begging for more), I'd be quite hesitant, to say the least, to publicly claim being a Liberal too.

But what I find quite interesting in that article (if what the woman says is accurate), is the boldness of Dr Gish in frankly citing his religion as the reason. This is like waving the red flag to the bull. I guess some doctors like Gish, are willing to make a provocative and aggressive stand on moral and religious ground. Good for them!

Birthcontrol pills? Embarrassing? Nowadays? Why would it be? Nobody seem to be embarrassed about being young, unmarried and knocked up anymore...so why would they care...much more be embarrassed about some pills that's being treated like regular vitamin c? We've been raising awareness since God knows when! Even most parents are so highly aware of this program to make the youth aware! Even classrooms are in sync! How much more awareness do we have to raise? We practically supply not only information....but also contraceptives to the youth! These young girls mostly have online access as well....teeming with help and support sites.

Curiously enough, your posts remind me of the expression, 'that dog don't hunt'. I never heard of the expression, so I don't know what you mean.