Gathering Place: Proposed rule an assault on women's health care

Full story: Honolulu Star-Bulletin

George Bush continues his assault on women, pushing his ideology and political agenda above patient health care.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of23
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Pat

Kaneohe, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 10, 2008
 
Thank you very much...
Mr Nueman

Ewa Beach, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 10, 2008
 
Isn't just amazing that Mr. Raff, a Pro Choice advocate, is more than willing to deny choice to other individuals! In denying choice to others Mr. Raff shows to the world that he is just another hypocrite.
momofmany

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 10, 2008
 
All parents should be parents by choice, not by accident. Send those comments in - these regulations will endanger our health. Our government is supposed to help us receive complete high-quality care as defined by current medical standards. These regulations work against that goal.
BrutalHonesty

Kula, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 10, 2008
 
This guy talks as if abortion IS birth control........
Truth Checker

Fayetteville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 10, 2008
 
As a physician, this is a fair policy to protect workers from being forced to perform duties against their moral convictions. I worked with a Catholic physician who believed that it was against his church's teaching to prescribe contraceptives - no problem - I wrote those rxs. Similarly, I am opposed to abortion, as there is no dispute that it causes the irrevocable cessation of cardiac and brain activity - the very definition of death. Someone would have to be completely ignorant to not know that they can find abortion services by searching the phone book or internet. This measure is basically designed to protect those of us with moral beliefs from the likes of Mr. Raff who wants to impose his belief on others by force. Long live freedom in America! Protect us from the Pro-Choice zealots!

“BJDs: Crack would be cheaper”

Since: Jul 08

Pro-choice and Proud

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 10, 2008
 
Truth Checker wrote:
As a physician, this is a fair policy to protect workers from being forced to perform duties against their moral convictions. I worked with a Catholic physician who believed that it was against his church's teaching to prescribe contraceptives - no problem - I wrote those rxs. Similarly, I am opposed to abortion, as there is no dispute that it causes the irrevocable cessation of cardiac and brain activity - the very definition of death. Someone would have to be completely ignorant to not know that they can find abortion services by searching the phone book or internet. This measure is basically designed to protect those of us with moral beliefs from the likes of Mr. Raff who wants to impose his belief on others by force. Long live freedom in America! Protect us from the Pro-Choice zealots!
And what about when there's only one pharmacy in the town, and the closest one is more than an hour away? What about when every doctor at a hospital shares the same views?

How about health-care professionals actually live up to their name, don't expect their patients or customers to live by their own beliefs, and just do their damn job?
Truth Checker

Fayetteville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 10, 2008
 
Those situations would certainly be rare, but, even so, a person having to drive an hour is a small inconvenience in order to uphold our individual freedoms.

Two examples: recently in CA physicians were cited for refusing to provide elective fertility care to a lesbian couple, even though they arranged an appt with a practice willing to service them within 1 hour. The physicians' individual morale beliefs were considered less important than forcing them to provide elective (non-emergent) care against their morale beliefs. Quite chilling.
To bring this home to non-medical people, suppose the gov't decreed that all citizens have to take their turn being the executioner for the convicted. Instead of jury duty a person would get execution duty. Wouldn't you like to be able to opt out of that if it was against your beliefs?
The American Way

Fort Huachuca, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 10, 2008
 
momofmany wrote:
All parents should be parents by choice, not by accident.
The fact that you think it's possible to have sex by accident undermines any chance you had of credibility.

“BJDs: Crack would be cheaper”

Since: Jul 08

Pro-choice and Proud

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 10, 2008
 
The American Way wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that you think it's possible to have sex by accident undermines any chance you had of credibility.
The fact that you seem to think that consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy undermines any chance YOU had of credibility.
Manapua Man

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 10, 2008
 
Vote for Obama!!!!!!!!

“BJDs: Crack would be cheaper”

Since: Jul 08

Pro-choice and Proud

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 10, 2008
 
Truth Checker wrote:
Those situations would certainly be rare, but, even so, a person having to drive an hour is a small inconvenience in order to uphold our individual freedoms.
Two examples: recently in CA physicians were cited for refusing to provide elective fertility care to a lesbian couple, even though they arranged an appt with a practice willing to service them within 1 hour. The physicians' individual morale beliefs were considered less important than forcing them to provide elective (non-emergent) care against their morale beliefs. Quite chilling.
To bring this home to non-medical people, suppose the gov't decreed that all citizens have to take their turn being the executioner for the convicted. Instead of jury duty a person would get execution duty. Wouldn't you like to be able to opt out of that if it was against your beliefs?
That's not a similar situation at all. A similar situation would be if it was okay for me, back when I worked at a bank, to refuse to service a particular client's accounts because of my moral beliefs. Let's use the BSA as an example. Should I have the right to refuse to DO MY JOB? Should the account holder have to go to a different branch? What if there's only one branch of my bank, and I'm the only person available to help them at that time? Why should I be excused from doing the job I AGREED TO DO when I initially took the position?

Now turn that around and apply it to anyone in the medical field. They went into their jobs knowing full well what the requirements of their positions would be. Why should they be allowed to refuse to fulfill the requirements of their job?
The American Way

Fort Huachuca, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 10, 2008
 
z3ncat wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you seem to think that consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy undermines any chance YOU had of credibility.
Uh, yeah, okay. So you don't believe in assumed risk or taking responsibility for the known possible results of our actions? We should be allowed to do whatever we want and if there's a consequence we don't like we shouldn't have to face it?

“BJDs: Crack would be cheaper”

Since: Jul 08

Pro-choice and Proud

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 10, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The American Way wrote:
<quoted text>Uh, yeah, okay. So you don't believe in assumed risk or taking responsibility for the known possible results of our actions? We should be allowed to do whatever we want and if there's a consequence we don't like we shouldn't have to face it?
Consent to risk != consent to see an action through without seeking alternatives.

You consent to the RISK of pregnancy when you consent to sex. You do NOT consent to pregnancy itself, nor do you consent to carry a pregnancy to term.

Similarly, you consent to the risk of being injured in in auto accident when you get into a car, but you do not consent to the injuries themselves, nor do you consent to suffering those injuries without seeking medical attention.
Truth Checker

Fayetteville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 10, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

First of all, the situation is analogous - so, would you like your turn as executioner, or would you like a conscience exemption?

Secondly, as a physician, I am not required to do something just because you ask for it. If you want a narcotic and I don't feel that it is indicated, I don't have to prescribe it. My Catholic colleague was against contraception for unmarried people. His belief was that it then encouraged unhealthful behavior, and that as a true advocate for health he believed that a monogamous relationship within marriage was the best medical advice since then neither person could be exposed to STDs. My personal belief was different - although I agreed that the best protection against STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and babies being born into single parent homes would be for people to wait until marriage, I did not feel conflicted about prescribing contraception. But, he is entitled not to be forced by the gov't (or Planned Parenthood)to go against his conscience. This is still America - the land of the free.
LauLau

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 10, 2008
 
Vote Democratic!!!!!!!!

“Mind your own business”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 10, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Truth Checker wrote:
First of all, the situation is analogous - so, would you like your turn as executioner, or would you like a conscience exemption?
Secondly, as a physician, I am not required to do something just because you ask for it. If you want a narcotic and I don't feel that it is indicated, I don't have to prescribe it. My Catholic colleague was against contraception for unmarried people. His belief was that it then encouraged unhealthful behavior, and that as a true advocate for health he believed that a monogamous relationship within marriage was the best medical advice since then neither person could be exposed to STDs. My personal belief was different - although I agreed that the best protection against STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and babies being born into single parent homes would be for people to wait until marriage, I did not feel conflicted about prescribing contraception. But, he is entitled not to be forced by the gov't (or Planned Parenthood)to go against his conscience. This is still America - the land of the free.
As a Paramedic, I know not to take a rape victim to a Catholic hospital because they will not even prescribe MAP.

I find IV drug abusers morally reprehensible. They are a huge drain on our society, and a waste of our tax dollars as well as account for vast amounts of unpaid medical bills. As a true advocate for health, I do not want to encourage their ability to continually abuse IV drugs. Therefore, I am entitled not to be forced by the gov't (or the Hospital, or my Employer)to go against my conscience. This is still America - the land of the free. Or, should I just shut up and do the job that I trained to do, and the one my employer pays me to do?

“BJDs: Crack would be cheaper”

Since: Jul 08

Pro-choice and Proud

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 11, 2008
 
Truth Checker wrote:
First of all, the situation is analogous - so, would you like your turn as executioner, or would you like a conscience exemption?
Secondly, as a physician, I am not required to do something just because you ask for it. If you want a narcotic and I don't feel that it is indicated, I don't have to prescribe it. My Catholic colleague was against contraception for unmarried people. His belief was that it then encouraged unhealthful behavior, and that as a true advocate for health he believed that a monogamous relationship within marriage was the best medical advice since then neither person could be exposed to STDs. My personal belief was different - although I agreed that the best protection against STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and babies being born into single parent homes would be for people to wait until marriage, I did not feel conflicted about prescribing contraception. But, he is entitled not to be forced by the gov't (or Planned Parenthood)to go against his conscience. This is still America - the land of the free.
No, it's NOT analogous at all. The government isn't FORCING people to take jobs - they are simply requiring that health-care providers are held to the same standards as anyone else who signs an employment contract: they must fulfill ALL the requirements of their jobs and not get to pick and choose which parts they want to do.

The government isn't grabbing people off the streets - or out of church pews - and insisting they go through years of schooling and training to become a health-care provider and act opposite to their moral code. People are making that choice on their own. They know, when they apply for a job, when they interview for that job, when they sign that job contract, when they fill out the subsequent paperwork, what that job will entail - what the responsibilities will be. They have the opportunity, at any point, to ask if there will be anything required of them that they may not be comfortable with - and they have the opportunity, if the answer is 'yes', to refuse to take that job. No one is going to throw them in jail if they turn down the offer.

All the opponents of the HHS proposal want is for health-care providers to be held to the same standards as anyone else who takes a job knowing what the requirements are - to fulfill those requirements. Period.
Truth checker

Fort Huachuca, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 11, 2008
 
There is actually no requirement of the job that a physician has to participate in abortions in any way. So, it is a made up standard which you keep referring to when you assert that providers have to fulfill the requirements of the job. The standards for physicians and other health care professionals are set by the licensing boards of each state, and in general most states have statements such that if a physician objects to doing something because of conscience that they just have to ensure that the patient can still get care. In fact, the Hippocratic Oath states that physicians will Not participate in abortion. For a pro-life physician, who follows the scientific evidence that the fetus is not the mother's body (the DNA is different, the fetus has its own heart rate and brain waves, etc.), to participate in abortion is akin to participating in the taking of life (definition of death - the permanent cessation of cardiac or brain activity). Some physicians see various forms of birth control which interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg in a similar manner. No one is forced by the gov't to go against their personal religious or moral beliefs in non-emergency situations.
Again, I challenge you on the analogy that I made. Suppose that the gov't decrees that by virtue of people being citizens that they have to take their turn on execution duty. WOuld you do it?

“Mind your own business”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Sep 11, 2008
 
Truth checker wrote:
There is actually no requirement of the job that a physician has to participate in abortions in any way. So, it is a made up standard which you keep referring to when you assert that providers have to fulfill the requirements of the job. The standards for physicians and other health care professionals are set by the licensing boards of each state, and in general most states have statements such that if a physician objects to doing something because of conscience that they just have to ensure that the patient can still get care. In fact, the Hippocratic Oath states that physicians will Not participate in abortion. For a pro-life physician, who follows the scientific evidence that the fetus is not the mother's body (the DNA is different, the fetus has its own heart rate and brain waves, etc.), to participate in abortion is akin to participating in the taking of life (definition of death - the permanent cessation of cardiac or brain activity). Some physicians see various forms of birth control which interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg in a similar manner. No one is forced by the gov't to go against their personal religious or moral beliefs in non-emergency situations.
Again, I challenge you on the analogy that I made. Suppose that the gov't decrees that by virtue of people being citizens that they have to take their turn on execution duty. WOuld you do it?
It wouldn't bother me to execute some pedophiles, rapists and murders. As long as they have had more than an adequate defense, DNA testing, and their appeals have been upheld. For them I will start the IV and I will push the drugs.

For other health care providers, if abortions bother you or prescribing BC pills bothers you, then practice your trade where you won't be in conflict. There are many areas of medicine open to you that would not cause you to be in conflict with your conscious.

If you decide to work in an abortion clinic, or family planning service, or emergency room where you will deal with rape and incest victims, I don't buy your "violation of your religious belief " argument. You choose to take the job, then you should do the job you agreed to do, and that you are paid to do. If you don't like it, you are free to choose to go somewhere else. You could even open up your own private practice. Hire your own self righteous nurses, and judgmental staff.
Okole Maluna

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Sep 11, 2008
 
Bush doesn't care about anyone except his family and his cronies. It's all a mirage!!!!!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of23
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Waipio Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Waipio People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Waipio News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Waipio
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••