Do please at least try to be serious. Patently, neither smoking nor working in road construction are forms of biological activity, physiological or pathological.You said pregnancy is a medical condition because it has the possibility of cause death or suffering. I agree that doctors are involved for that reason, but I don't think that makes it a medical condition. Smoking can cause death or suffering. Working on road construction can cause death or suffering.
Except for emergency care where the law explicitly doesn't apply, and it is not to supercede any existing anti-discrimination laws, and should an institution be making decisions on religious conviction, they must be upfront that they are a religious institution, and some parts of the health system need to file any concientious objection in advance... it's not the blanket free pass you're characterizing it as.These things happen and now there's a law in Arkansas that basically gives any medical professional a Get Out Of Jail free card for whenever they don't feel like providing treatment by claiming moral convictions.
But you've already brought non-biological factors into your range of medical conditions. You've already included poor self-image as a medical condition.Do please at least try to be serious. Patently, neither smoking nor working in road construction are forms of biological activity, physiological or pathological.
In much the same way, SARS-CoV-2 is not a medical condition, it's a virus. Covid-19 is a medical condition, being the biological activity caused by someone with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
A medical condition is something that causes, or has the potential to cause, death, illness or suffering. Suffering is therefore not a medical condition in this paradigm, it's an indicator of patient wellbeing. It could of course go on to cause a medical condition, such as depression.But you've already brought non-biological factors into your range of medical conditions. You've already included poor self-image as a medical condition.
It is impartial to the backgrounds of the patients. The law is to allow doctors to refuse to use certain procedures that they morally object to, it does not allow doctors to choose patients they refuse to treat the same as others, and the Governor specifically said he would not have signed the bill if it didDoctors need to be impartial to the backgrounds of their patients. As contrarian as I am, I can't see any good reason for this and it should be revoked.
The fundamental problem is that it allows doctors the ability to de facto pick and choose what they deem appropriate to treat, ahead of the patients requiring treatment and against the good practice evidence and consensus of the field. It is therefore a denial of patient rights, and facilitates improper patient care; both are clear breaches of medical ethics.It is impartial to the backgrounds of the patients. The law is to allow doctors to refuse to use certain procedures that they morally object to, it does not allow doctors to choose patients they refuse to treat the same as others, and the Governor specifically said he would not have signed the bill if it did
This really doesn't seem that nebulous to me. If a doctor says they won't do a procedure because of a conscientious objection to it, and you find they've done the procedure 47 other times, you sue the pants off them. The only situation where this would be difficult to prove whether it was or wasn't prejudice would be with a unique patient requesting a treatment the doctor has never had a comparable patient for.There is of course moral hazard, that a doctor can refuse valid treatment out of prejudice, and good luck proving that beyond reasonable doubt with this ever-so-nebulous get-out clause.
a) ArkansasGreat! Now I just need to move to Arizona, and open up a medical business, and tell all the christians to fuck off because my moral beliefs are in conflict with their worship of a genocidal egomaniac who threatens eternal punishment if you don't kiss his ass every second of your life! I'm sure they will be totally fine with that!
Can you give me an example of a procedure you think could be justifiably viewed by a doctor as unethical to perform for a patient? And just so we don't retread worn ground that will get us nowhere, let us leave the abortion debate out of this if we can.It is impartial to the backgrounds of the patients. The law is to allow doctors to refuse to use certain procedures that they morally object to, it does not allow doctors to choose patients they refuse to treat the same as others, and the Governor specifically said he would not have signed the bill if it did
So it's perfectly OK to discriminate against people for being born different but completely unacceptable to discriminate against people because of actual life choices?a) Arkansas
b) That would still be illegal under this bill, as would a Christian denying service to an atheist.
Something, something, Christianity is the Truth and therefore not a choice, something, something, the "gay lifestyle" is a life choice, something, something.So it's perfectly OK to discriminate against people for being born different but completely unacceptable to discriminate against people because of actual life choices?
There is a clear contradiction, because medical science doesn't study effects on the patient's soul. I can give one example: preventative medicine for HIV if the patient is going on a sex tourism trip, but even then how much would that ease anyone's conscience? Maybe this person does the trip anyway and actually gets HIV! But hey, at least the good doc didn't enable them.Can you give me an example of a procedure you think could be justifiably viewed by a doctor as unethical to perform for a patient?
The lowest hanging fruit is the old-timey procedures that in retrospect were never justified in the first place. Like lobotomies. If 80 years ago a surgeon was removed from their position because a patient wanted a lobotomy and they wouldn't do it, history would look back kindly on them.Can you give me an example of a procedure you think could be justifiably viewed by a doctor as unethical to perform for a patient? And just so we don't retread worn ground that will get us nowhere, let us leave the abortion debate out of this if we can.
Neither is ok, and you don't want to follow the implications of your question.So it's perfectly OK to discriminate against people for being born different but completely unacceptable to discriminate against people because of actual life choices?
Side note: the books the nazis burned was research on trans people. Suffice to say, they aren't a new phenomenonThe lowest hanging fruit is the old-timey procedures that in retrospect were never justified in the first place. Like lobotomies. If 80 years ago a surgeon was removed from their position because a patient wanted a lobotomy and they wouldn't do it, history would look back kindly on them.
Neither is ok, and you don't want to follow the implications of your question.
No, I wouldn't because I would see it as illegal. I just wished that Christians would follow the same rulesNeither is ok, and you don't want to follow the implications of your question.
You seem to be side stepping what this law actually is suppposed to be accomplishing as far as real situations. Or you are suggesting that people could go up and request lobotomies before this law and a doc would be obligated but pretty sure its the former.The lowest hanging fruit is the old-timey procedures that in retrospect were never justified in the first place. Like lobotomies. If 80 years ago a surgeon was removed from their position because a patient wanted a lobotomy and they wouldn't do it, history would look back kindly on them.