[J_9]

The regulation, instituted in the last days of the Bush administration, strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse to provide a medial service because of moral qualms.

So does this mean my job is at risk because I choose not to be a part of a medical abortion?

Can we say socialism has returned?

[George_1950]

This may be more of an issue of political correctness, part of Obama's cultural revolution.
Actually, there is evidently some joinder between U.S. and Nazi healthcare mentioned in a Wikipedia article: "The Nazis based their eugenics program on the United States' programs of forced sterilization.[6] The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, proclaimed on July 14, 1933 required physicians to register every case of hereditary illness known to them, except in women over forty-five years of age.[7] Physicians could be fined for failing to comply." The Nazis based their eugenics program on the United States' programs of forced sterilization.[6] Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I mean to say, we really need to be thoughtful and careful with this type stuff.

[Wondergirl]

No. No.

[speechlesstx]

Possibly yes, yes. But I'm sure if you were in the military and had some conscientious objection the administration would go all out to defend you.

[excon]

So does this mean my job is at risk because I choose not to be a part of a medical abortion?

Hello J:

I don't know. Looks to be the opposite, far as I can tell. But, socialized medicine is coming. THAT you can take to the bank.

excon

[Fr_Chuck]

Look at the issue of the drug stores that did not want to offer the "morning after" pill. They had to, and if the person behind the counter would not do it they lost their jobs.

So I see no reason to believe this is too far down the road either.

[tomder55]

The regulation, instituted in the last days of the Bush administration, strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse to provide a medial service because of moral qualms.

I believe Obama will reverse the conscience clause . He will replace it with specific rules that punish health care providers who refuse to perform morally objectional procedures or administer medications the provider opposes.

During the campaign he claimed such questions were beyond his pay grade.
But we knew this was coming because of his past actions in the Illinois Senate .


Not sure how it will affect your job but it bears close scrutiny . Senator Tom Coburn ,a physician who goes home on weekends to continue his medical practice ,said he would go to jail and so would a lot of others. (“I think a lot of us will go to jail”)
CNSNews.com - U.S. Senator Says He Would Practice Civil Disobedience If Obama Repeals Abortion 'Conscience Clause'

I think there will be a groundswell of civil disobedience if they try this. Fair-minded liberals would actually object to the law because, even though they themselves might perform abortions or approve of them, they don't think someone else should be forced to do it.

[speechlesstx]

Hello J:

I don't know. Looks to be the opposite, far as I can tell. But, socialized medicine is coming. THAT you can take to the bank.

And you were saying how good that would be?

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2009 AND THEREAFTER

Sweden's Government Health Care

Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). That's until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list.

Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada's single-payer system. Canada's government system isn't that different from Britain's. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don't: proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.

"OK, Williams," you say, "Sweden is the world's socialist wonder." Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden's problems in "Lesson from Sweden's Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt," published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D. a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden's third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden's National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.

Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, "In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today's slimmed-down health care."

These are just a few of the problems of Sweden's single-payer government-run health care system. I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying. We have problems in our health care system but most of them are a result of too much government. Over 50 percent of health care expenditures in our country are made by government. Government health care advocates might say that they will avoid the horrors of other government-run systems. Don't believe them.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, who published Sven Larson's paper, is a group of liberty-oriented doctors and health care practitioners who haven't sold their members down the socialist river as have other medical associations. They deserve our thanks for being a major player in the '90s defeat of "Hillary care."

[excon]

And you were saying how good that would be?

Hello Steve:

Yuppers.

excon

PS> (edited). Look. I got a good idea. We have some Canadians right here on THIS website. They have socialized medicine. Why don't we ask them to tell us what they think? Fraid?? Yes, you are.

[speechlesstx]

PS> (edited). Look. I got a good idea. We have some Canadians right here on THIS website. They have socialized medicine. Why don't we ask them to tell us what they think? Fraid???? Yes, you are.

Afraid? Since when have I feared an opinion?

[excon]

Afraid? Since when have I feared an opinion?

Hello again, Steve:

M, kay. I'm not going to steal this thread.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

M, kay. I'm not gonna steal this thread.

excon

Even though you're usually wrong you're a good man :D

[George_1950]

Even though you're usually wrong you're a good man :D

Yes, I would say excon is quite the entertainer and could possibly host a radio show?

[J_9]

socialized medicine is coming. THAT you can take to the bank.

That's not something I want to take to the bank. I don't want socialized medicine, I can hardly afford to live as it is. Now I will be taxed more, maybe lose my license if I choose not to perform an abortion for moral reasons, etc.

I want to be able to go to the doctor when and if I have to, not be put on some waiting list.

And hijacking this thread has been approved by this OP as long as we stay in the medical arena. ;)

[spitvenom]

If my boss told me to go to this church and fix their network and I said No because morally I do not agree with this church I would be fired. Not because of Morals but because I refused to do my job. In my eyes it is no different if you are a Dr or Nurse, If you say no to doing part of your job then you should be fired. Morals have nothing to do with it.

[tomder55]

Your boss being a private employer may indeed have the right to hire and fire anyone that they choose to do their business.

It is a completely different issue for the government to make laws that compel morally objectionable procedures be performed by unwilling practitioners... even when the facility is private .

[George_1950]

If my boss told me to go to this church and fix their network and I said No because morally i do not agree with this church I would be fired. Not because of Morals but because I refused to do my job. In my eyes it is no different if you are a Dr or Nurse, If you say no to doing part of your job then you should be fired. Morals have nothing to do with it.

You, sir, are very short-sighted. Dare I say, an apparatchik in training.

[J_9]

If my boss told me to go to this church and fix their network and I said No because morally i do not agree with this church I would be fired. Not because of Morals but because I refused to do my job. In my eyes it is no different if you are a Dr or Nurse, If you say no to doing part of your job then you should be fired. Morals have nothing to do with it.

Huh? Fixing a network is not a life/death situation.

[George_1950]

Huh? Fixing a network is not a life/death situation.

I would suggest, with due respect, morally 'tone deaf'.

[J_9]

I would suggest, with due respect, morally 'tone deaf'.

I think you're right. As it stands now, I can choose what patients I do or do not take. Once I accept the patient I cannot walk away from patient's care, abortion or not, without another nurse willing to take over care. That is abandonment and I can lose my license over this.

But Nobama's overall health care plans are making me wonder if I made the wrong choice in professions.

I could just move to dubai where I would get paid big bucks and not have to worry about all of this. LOL