kimmy

It's a shallow catch phrase. But is it really that far off the truth? Well hey, who doesn't get worked up over politics? It's the Religion of Failure. They do not hate us for our freedom, it's just that freedom is not halal. They do not hate us for our freedom, they just hate our willingness to exercise our freedom. They hate Israel's freedom. Because it's the Religion of Failure. But you said a moment ago that their religion doesn't permit dissent or free thought. Shouldn't they *like* oppression? etc. It's a bunch of baloney.They don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we're not them. Our freedom just happens to be one of the things that differentiates us from them. -k

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

I checked some of the usual "progressive" hang-outs, and was not terribly surprised to see the kind of reaction this story is getting there: -this was a false-flag operation! real Islamic extremists build better car-bombs. -they are setting the stage for a major false flag event later! This was just an experiment to see how media members react. Media members who don't fall in step with the idea that this was Islamic terrorism will be "culled" and replaced with media people who will blame Muslims. -we don't know that it was Islamic extremists at all! There was to be a "Pride parade" nearby, maybe this was actually anti-gay terrorism, and the anti-terror authorities missed it because they don't care about gays! -the Glasgow incident was just a traffic accident! It's being turned into more than it is by people who have a profit motive to keep you Very Afraid! Yep, business as usual in Leftopia. -k

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. I don't actually have a problem with the "conscience clause." What I do have a problem with is that not only did he refuse to provide the pill himself, he also flatly refused to refer her to anyone who would. I'm even more disgusted by the fact that the 20 year old was not provided, either by Dr Gish, or anybody else with the hospital, with adequate information. A patient should be provided with complete and accurate information so that they can make informed decisions about their treatment. Even Ascension Health's discussion about the Brownfield vs Freeman Hospital case agrees with that. Both Dr Gish and the Good Samaritan Hospital failed to do so. Do you feel that these patients received adequate care? Do you feel that the hospital had lived up to its ethical responsibilities when the 20-year old left without having spoken to a counsellor and without having been provided with any information about emergency contraception? 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? The hospital's new policy states that the specially trained nurses will provide care for sexual assault victims, and that doctors will only be involved if treatment of physical injuries is required. So yeah, basically, his interaction with rape victims in the future is going to be very limited. He certainly won't be the person providing them with information about counselling or medical options. 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? From what I read, it could be voted on as soon as next week, and appears to have support from Democrats and Republicans alike. -k

I somewhat disagree with the characterizations of Canada Day celebrations as "pumping up nationalist fervor". Canada Day celebrations are a tradition. They also contribute to a sense of community. I think maintaining the tradition and contributing to some sense of community is worth at least some amount of federal support. Nationalism is an ugly beast? Nationalist fervor? I somewhat agree, but this is Canada Day we're talking about. I don't see people getting all worked up to invade Greenland or St Pierre et Michelon. -k {Canada uber alles!}

My guess is that it probably makes handy financial sense to build federal buildings in Gatineau rather than Ottawa. Property on the other side of the river can probably be purchased for pennies per hectare. The government might as well use it, because it's not like anybody else is doing anything constructive with it. If you're not in a customer-oriented business, then building on cheap land makes financial sense, and I've got a strong hunch that the land in Gatineau is a heck of a lot cheaper than land just a few kilometers away on the other side of the river. Private businesses are going to want to stay on the Ontario side of the river, for obvious reasons. So why compete with them for that land, when an obvious source of cheap real estate is so close by? So a relative handful of civil servants will have to drive across the river to get to work. Is it that big a deal? -k

Indeed. The common thread isn't religion, it's stupidity. African tribalism with it's history of massacres and widespread belief in sorcerers who can steal a man's boy-parts by shaking hands with him, has to be one of the world's foremost hotbeds of stupidity. So it is hardly surprising that the Muslim world, itself having no shortage of idiots and idiot-worshipers, would look to African tribal practices and say "hey, we can learn from these people!" -k

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! Of course. Where on earth did you get the idea that I think she went to the rape counsellor first? The article indicated that Ms Boyer saw a rape counsellor later that day. Absolutely. You are making an excellent argument as to why all hospitals should have rape counselling services available. None of which actually supports your claim that the hospital provided any counselling. In fact, here's proof that the hospital doesn't, from the hospital's own mouth: http://www.gshleb.org/community.cfm?id=506 They're excited to announce their new and improved services for sexual assault victims. Victims no longer have to deal with an asshole like Dr Gish, thanks to specially trained nurses who will now conduct the exam, interview, and collect evidence. As well, if rape victims request counselling, the hospital will request the Sexual Assault Resource Counselling Center to send one. This is a new policy. This was announced 10 days ago. And the hospital still doesn't have it's own rape counsellors, it requests one from an external agency. (what a coincidence. Just as the compassionate care bill is approaching a vote and generating a wave of negative publicity for the hospital about the shitty way in which these women were treated, the hospital announces their exciting new policy that they're not going to treat future rape victims shitty anymore. Guess we know what it takes to get an institution to fix its act.) Ms Boyer spoke to a rape counsellor (one not provided by the hospital, as we've already discussed.) The 20 year old victim also mentioned in the story, the one who first came forward to bring this publicity to the hospital, was never offered rape counselling or provided with information about emergency contraception. Proof: http://www.pacare.org/media.php/9 She went for the rape exam, the doctor provided her with no information at all, she went back home, tells her family what happened the next day, her *sister* suggests the morning after pill, she goes back to the hospital to request it, the doctor says no, and *then* she's off to another town to obtain treatment. So that puts an end to your theory that the hospital provided counselling. So what? The law says Gish didn't have to provide her with an abortion. I've never suggested that Gish broke the *law*. What I've argued is that Gish willfully failed his responsibilities as a doctor, and that the hospital failed to provide appropriate treatment. The doctor hid information concerning treatment from his patient. That's a gross failure of a physician's responsibilities. Nobody else at the hospital provided her with adequate information either. So the hospital also failed the patient. The patient left the hospital without knowing what medical options she had, and didn't know about the option of emergency contraception until her sister suggested it the next day. 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. The doctor's employer doesn't let him talk to the media anymore. The incident has generated such negative publicity for the hospital that they've announced a new policy to proudly proclaim that they're doing things different now. The hospital spent "thousands of dollars" training nurses to treat rape victims so that Dr Gish doesn't. And outrage over what Dr Gish did prompted the a new law that's going to make sure that how Dr Gish dealt with these women can't happen to future rape victims. So I'd say that the bull ran his ass over, figuratively speaking. -k

The information you linked to is not a law or protocol, it's Ascension Health's (the Good Samaritan Hospital's parent organization) opinion about its moral and legal obligations in treating rape victims. And even this Catholic organization recognizes a moral obligation to provide adequate information regarding patient options. While you apparently believe that the rape counselling these patients received was provided by the hospital, I see no evidence of that. A 20 year old rape victim also treated by Dr Gish had to go to a different city to obtain the treatment ( http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566 ). Does it really sounds like she had an advocate acting on her behalf? Nothing at all in the story indicates that the hospital provided rape counselling. The law that was proposed in response to Doctor Gish's actions contains a clause that will require hospitals to provide counselling services, but at present it's not required: http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_6194524 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. While it was not this particular incident that brought the issue to the lawmakers, Dr Gish was at the center of an incident last year that did: http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566 The Brownfield v Freeman Hospital case was in California, not Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania doesn't actually have a law currently (but might by next week). -k

I don't know about "everywhere", but I agree with most of what you say. I can't imagine why anyone believes that they have a right not to be observed when they are on a public street. Unless you are the Invisible Man, being observed is an unavoidable consequence of being on a public street. And I don't even care much whether it's a credible means of fighting terrorism; I'm thinking more along the lines of ordinary situations such as brawling and fighting on public streets, attacks at bus-terminals and subway stations, and this sort of thing. I'm thinking particularly of the Canada Day riot on Whyte Ave in Edmonton a few years ago, or the vandalism and violence that broke out each night on Whyte Ave during the Oilers' run to the Stanley Cup finals. As they were outnumbered by the thousands, the police were unable to effectively deal with the chaos, and many lawbreakers were able to avoid any consequences of their actions just through the anonymity that large crowds provide. One of the tools that police used to catch some of the miscreants was photographs and video provided by private citizens, store owners, newspapers, and television. I believe that the anonymity of being part of a large crowd gave the thugs and troublemakers a sense that they could engage in violence and vandalism without facing any consequences. I believe that knowing their actions were being recorded on CCTV would have put a damper on a significant portion of the chaos. -k

When I bought a used car in Alberta and got it registered in BC, I had to pay BC PST on it. I don't understand why, or what business of the BC government it is if I make a purchase in another province. The car was full of other stuff that I bought in Alberta; I didn't have to pay PST on any of it. This seems like a bit of a scam to me, somehow. They're leveraging the fact that a car must be registered (unlike a computer or a TV...) into a blatant tax-grab. Philosophically, demanding a sales tax to register a car that wasn't even purchased here is indefensible. The only justification behind their position that I can imagine is something along the lines of: "We control the registration papers, and if you want one you've got to put up with whatever crap we say." -k

Way back in post #3 I suggested that there should be patient advocates, whose job is to ensure that patients have access to all the information they need, and have access to the treatment they need, rather than what treatment the doctor's religious beliefs will permit him to provide. And it seems unfortunate to me that something like that would even be necessary, but if, when you go to the hospital for whatever reason you find yourself in the care of someone who is primarily concerned with his own feelings rather than your medical needs, what's the alternative? Some of you have advocated the idea of comparison shopping, as if choosing a hospital emergency room were not much different from choosing a grocery store. I don't agree. An emergency room ought to provide treatment appropriate to the patient's needs. The notion of someone might get rolled into an emergency room in need of an immediate blood transfusion only to find that the only doctor on duty is a Jehovah's Witness whose conscience wouldn't allow him to administer one. Or a "Christian Scientist" whose ethical beliefs only permit him to provide splints and prayer. But the women in the article weren't going to die if they weren't given access to the "morning after" pill, right? So it's ok? The likely outcome of Dr Gish's action, if they weren't able to find another doctor in time for the RU486 to be effective? They spend 3 weeks peeing on a stick each morning to find out whether they're pregnant, then find a doctor whose religious beliefs don't prevent him from performing an abortion. If I recall correctly, even the most restrictive state-level abortion laws in the United States still support the right of rape victims to seek abortion. The phrase "...except in the case of victims of rape or incest..." was mentioned every time I heard mention of an anti-abortion bill. Even if one feels that Gish himself should not have to provide this service, there's still two problems here. First, he refused to provide access to another doctor who could provide the treatment, even when specifically asked. Secondly, the patient should always be informed of what options they have. The two victims in this article knew about the option of emergency contraception, but if Dr Gish treated other rape victims who didn't know that they had the option of getting RU486, somehow Dr Gish doesn't seem like the type who'd inform them that it exists. Hiding information from a patient is not acceptable. Partly as a result of publicity that resulted from Dr Gish refusing to provide emergency contraception to a rape victim, there's now a bill before the Pennsylvania legislature that will require hospitals to do both of these things. So in that sense, yeah, good for Dr Gish for making a fight out of this. He exposed an important issue and got the lawmakers to take decisive action. -k

Hey, look, it's the guy who is mad because there wasn't a $55,000 desk-job waiting for him when he graduated from the YepNope I.T. College and Haircare Academy, and blames the immigrants for taking all the good jobs. -k

I have a couple of questions here. Who are the members of the "shrieking left?" What have they said that make statements like the following "tame?" The shrieking left? Spend a few minutes at Rabble/Babble and you'll get the picture. What kind of statements? Comparing whichever politician they're against at the moment to Hitler, that sort of thing. Comparison of the treatment of the poor to apartheid, or equating opposition to Bill C-250 with support for gay bashing. That sort of thing. It's not hard to find left-wing stuff that's as over the top as Coulter. They're certainly out there, and I'm sure you've seen them. I guess the main difference is that the "shrieking left" don't have newspaper columns, TV appearances, and books to sell. -k

Not a week goes by without a new news item about corruption and horrific labor practices in China. Poisoned pet-food made from contaminated Chinese protein. Corrupt inspectors being bribed to overlook gross deficiencies in product safety. Corrupt inspectors being bribed to overlook deadly environmental practices. Whistleblowers being thrown in jail. This week, there was even an item about slaves. (you are clicking here for learn more!) Why *shouldn't* we stop buying things from this country, at least until such time as they can demonstrate that they have a credible record on these issues? I'm all for competition, but it doesn't seem fair to ask our industries to match prices against competitors who are allowed to pump raw toxic waste into the air and water, benefit from slave labour, and seem to have rather low standards in regard to consumer safety. -k

But scientists are turning to "Intelligent Design" in droves! Just ask Betsy, she'll tell you! -k

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

Sure. But that wasn't what you said. You said that Edwards attempted to "slur" her. How so? Yeah, and lots of people bought Britney Spears records, too. Doesn't mean Britney Spears is any good. Once you look past the showmanship and look at the substance, as her supporters here have been challenging people to do, you find that there isn't actually any substance. Nobody is happier than Ann Coulter that her adversaries focus on her showmanship and stage persona. It distracts people from noticing that when it comes to ideas, there's not actually much worth talking about. She's a lot like Britney Spears in that respect: she's great at keeping people talking about her, despite the fact that she doesn't actually produce much worth talking about. -k

If the war had to be fought, then it was just. Pretty much by definition, yes? -k

Again, what substance is it that we're supposed to debate? That she called John Edwards a fag? Is that the "substance" that makes Ann Coulter such a popular media figure? So what? Is being "gay" a bad thing? In Coulter's mind it, and the mind of many of her fans, it certainly is. She often mocks her adversaries by characterizing them as effeminate, so reaching for "faggot" is probably her heavy artillery. That's not true. While he mentioned Mary Cheney during the debate, it was not an attempt to slur her or her family. The only people who would interpret his mention of her as a slur are people who think gays are ruining the country, or that gay children are created by bad parents. If I recall correctly, John Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney as an example of a gay person who *wasn't* a result of bad parenting or weak values, in fact. The person who slurred Mary Cheney was Alan Keyes, you'll recall. While I partly agree with you-- Coulter's rhetoric is actually fairly tame compared to some of the bile that comes out of the mouths of the shrieking left-- I don't think there's anything wonderful about it. -k

It would be one very dumb person...or someone without any creativity anyway....to walk away from a lucrative and prestigious job, especially if one had invested quite some time and money, and most likely being in debt with student loans just to attain it....just because somebody says "to hell with your morals and your oath." I'd surely find ways to work around it before I throw in the towel! I'd suggest that a possible work-around for Dr Gish would have been to refer such requests to a doctor who is willing to provide emergency contraception, something he expressly refused to do when asked. That's the point where it goes from "I can't provide that because my beliefs prohibit it" to "I don't want you to obtain that because my beliefs prohibit it." And yet you're up in arms when the Somali cabbies inform their customers "Sorry, I don't transport liquor." And yet you can't see a double standard. Also, while posting signs like that might certainly be a possibility if you run a small clinic, it's not actually an option at a hospital. When you're treated in an emergency ward, you don't have a choice of which doctor you see. Because you're desperately trying to find an explanation for why your contradictory views aren't a double standard? While pro-lifers would argue that performing an abortion is playing god, just about everybody (pro-lifers included) will recognize that deciding for the patient that she should not receive contraception is also playing god. Dr Gish made a decision that could have drastically altered the lives of these two women in direct opposition to their express wishes. He put his opinion ahead of the patient's desire to control the course of her own life. That's playing god. The spirit of the oath is that the doctor have his patients' interests at heart. When Dr Gish treated these two rape victims, their expressed need was to avoid further compounding their tragedy by bearing a thug's child. Dr Gish decided, based purely on his own that the patients should, if impregnanted, bear their attackers' children. That's not having the patient's interests at heart, that's imposing one's own beliefs on another person when they're at their most vulnerable and helpless. He played god with these two womens' lives by making that choice for them. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of the intent of the Hippocratic oath. -k

People should not impose their religious beliefs on others, and if peoples religious beliefs prevent them from doing their job then they should find a different job, unless Betsy agrees with the religious beliefs in question. See, GC? It's not a double standard at all! -k

Since "FGM" is expressly designed to ruin the "patient's" ability to enjoy sex, I'm somewhat doubtful that any method of abortion is as invasive. Such a sequence of events are both unlikely No kidding it's unlikely. You know why it's unlikely? It's unlikely because the stupidity of having a doctor who refuses to perform blood transfusions staffing the emergency room is obvious to everyone. Apparently the stupidity of having a doctor who can't provide contraception caring for rape victims was not equally obvious. Well good. At least we got that one nailed down. Sure. Maybe they don't have the right blood type on hand, or maybe the doctor has been working for 26 straight hours and screws it up, or maybe the patient's wounds are so severe that he dies regardless of the care he receives. But that wasn't the question. The question was, is it acceptible for the patient if the doctor refuses to provide the blood transfusion because he's a JW.The answer, as you put it, was that this is What was that again? And despite all the other weasel-talk in your response, the bottom line was that the situation is one more time just because I like the sound of it. ...because opening a bottle and handing over an RU-486 pill could be botched if the doctor's not at the top of his game? -k

Very well, I was mistaken regarding the morning after pill. However, your statement: certainly appears to posit that abortion is more invasive than genital mutilation. Which is still an immensely stupid and ignorant thing to say. Was that your intent? Since we're big on hypothetical scenarios in this thread, like patients demanding cocaine for pain relief or patients demanding female circumcisions, let me propose one of my own. Suppose someone has been in a car crash. He's suffered massive blood loss, and he needs a blood transfusion. Luckily for him, the hospital has enough blood of his type in the cooler! Unluckily for him, the doctor working the emergency room that night is a Jehovah's Witness. He won't administer a transfusion, for moral reasons. Another doctor is called in, but it could take him hours to arrive, and our car-crash victim could expire before he arrives. Has our car-crash victim been treated fairly? Is this an acceptible sequence of events in your opinion? Does this sound "ok", or does it sound like a problem? -k

Most girls learn in health class that washing the "icky stuff" out after intercourse is not an effective or reliable means of preventing pregnancy. (did you honestly not know that?!) Yes doctors need to provide medical support....but it is up to the doctors' judgment how to go about it. Some patient cannot just go to a doctor and demand, "I'm in pain. Prescribe me cocaine!" The rape victims in the article were not asking for cocaine, they were asking for emergency contraception. -k