Arkansas Passes Law Allowing Doctors To Refuse Service Due To Moral/Religious Objections

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,735
615
118
Country
USA
A "medical condition" is not where something is "wrong" per se, it is a condition which causes or has the potential to cause death, ill-health, or suffering...

There are interesting arguments to be had about medicalisation of certain conditions. You are wildly and inappropriately overplaying them.
I don't think it is inappropriate to bring it up when you say not having hair is a medical condition.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,735
615
118
Country
USA
Well...I mean...chemo therapy is still a thing...
Yes, and?

Edit: I'll be thorough and give a real response. Agema has, within this thread, both questioned the medical ethics of any health professional who might refuse to perform a medical treatment, and also called hair transplants a medical treatment, the logical consequence of this is that in Agema-world, any doctor who refuses to perform hair-transplants is failing in their medical ethics, unless there is a specific health reason not to.

So we can a) stand by that ridiculous conclusion, b) reconsider the entire idea of medical ethics, or c) be more precise about what we call a medical treatment in the first place, which is where I stand.
 
Last edited:

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,201
1,007
118
Country
Sweden
Yes, and?

Edit: I'll be thorough and give a real response. Agema has, within this thread, both questioned the medical ethics of any health professional who might refuse to perform a medical treatment, and also called hair transplants a medical treatment, the logical consequence of this is that in Agema-world, any doctor who refuses to perform hair-transplants is failing in their medical ethics, unless there is a specific health reason not to.

So we can a) stand by that ridiculous conclusion, b) reconsider the entire idea of medical ethics, or c) be more precise about what we call a medical treatment in the first place, which is where I stand.
And he's right. The caveat that you seem to miss is that desire for a medical intervention of some kind is not the same as a need for it. Just because I want an exploratory hysterectomy that doesn't mean I'm going to get one, but if there's a medical reason why (such as hard to diagnose, painful cysts) then I'm entitled to it. If someone has lost their hair and is suffering from it (most likely due to severe emotional distress), then a hair transplant is justified from a medical perspective. That doesn't mean that a) any doctor should do it or b) that it is a high priority compared to other medical interventions.

So your insistence on equating non-necessary interventions to necessary ones is entirely fallacious. There's no similarity between someone wanting a hair transplant "because" and someone wanting an abortion because they don't want a child and don't want to endure the risks of pregnancy and child birth. The former in that case is not driven by a medical need, the latter is.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,735
615
118
Country
USA
And he's right. The caveat that you seem to miss is that desire for a medical intervention of some kind is not the same as a need for it. Just because I want an exploratory hysterectomy that doesn't mean I'm going to get one, but if there's a medical reason why (such as hard to diagnose, painful cysts) then I'm entitled to it. If someone has lost their hair and is suffering from it (most likely due to severe emotional distress), then a hair transplant is justified from a medical perspective. That doesn't mean that a) any doctor should do it or b) that it is a high priority compared to other medical interventions.

So your insistence on equating non-necessary interventions to necessary ones is entirely fallacious. There's no similarity between someone wanting a hair transplant "because" and someone wanting an abortion because they don't want a child and don't want to endure the risks of pregnancy and child birth. The former in that case is not driven by a medical need, the latter is.
You mean I'm right. You're agreeing with me. See the part where I questioned everyone's perspectives because they were suggesting doctors would be unethical to refuse someone a treatment that the doctor didn't prescribe. The desire for a medical intervention isn't the same as the need for it, I agree. In fact, I would say with a broad enough definition of "need", the need is what defines a medical procedure being medical. A hair transplant can be a medical procedure. It can also be a non-medical procedure. I already brought this up with my exaggerated leg amputation example earlier.

Like, you say I'm insistent of equating necessary interventions to non-necessary ones, but I'm very much doing the opposite.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,201
214
68
Finland
A hair transplant can be a medical procedure. It can also be a non-medical procedure.
There are political decisions always in play, for example we have made the decision that there is no reason good enough to get hair transplanted out of the public pocket.

In general, the ethics problem comes from allowing the refusal of treatment based on personal whims of the professionals, whose job is held to a high degree because the work is based on the medical sciences. That degree of professionalism also brings high standards of treatment, facilities, training, efficiency, safety and most importantly in this topic: the power to make decisions. Abundant supply of doctors and clinics solves the problem of some of them objecting to some treatment, but it also introduces a near-infinite chain of second opinions until the patient simply gets their demands met. Before I'd pass a law like this I'd want proof that it's practically impossible to get locked out of treatment because no available doctor will treat you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kae

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,294
1,918
118
Country
United Kingdom
Edit: I'll be thorough and give a real response. Agema has, within this thread, both questioned the medical ethics of any health professional who might refuse to perform a medical treatment
No, he hasn't. Healthcare professionals obviously determine whether a treatment is appropriate or not, depending on research and a degree of their own expertise.

Nobody would have any problem if they refused on practical grounds. But if they based the refusal on the fact they don't personally like the treatment, regardless of how effective it is at addressing the issue at hand?
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,201
1,007
118
Country
Sweden
You mean I'm right. You're agreeing with me. See the part where I questioned everyone's perspectives because they were suggesting doctors would be unethical to refuse someone a treatment that the doctor didn't prescribe. The desire for a medical intervention isn't the same as the need for it, I agree. In fact, I would say with a broad enough definition of "need", the need is what defines a medical procedure being medical. A hair transplant can be a medical procedure. It can also be a non-medical procedure. I already brought this up with my exaggerated leg amputation example earlier.

Like, you say I'm insistent of equating necessary interventions to non-necessary ones, but I'm very much doing the opposite.
No, a hair transplant is a medical procedure always. The need of it isn't the part that makes it a medical procedure. Seanchaidh has already defined medical condition, so let me define medical procedure :
A medical procedure is a course of action intended to achieve a result in the delivery of healthcare.

A medical procedure with the intention of determining, measuring, or diagnosing a patient condition or parameter is also called a medical test. Other common kinds of procedures are therapeutic (i.e., intended to treat, cure, or restore function or structure), such as surgical and physical rehabilitation procedures.
But hey, I get it. You came into this thread claiming that birth control and abortion aren't medical procedures (which would conveniently let healthcare personnel reject doing or helping patients do those things). Now you need to play the semantics to the bone because to do anything else is to admit that you came into the discussion uninformed but heavily biased and had your opinion instantly proven wrong. As long as you can play the semantics card you can also pretend, both to yourself and the rest of us, that you aren't just here to defend some really shitty Republican practices that flies in the face of medical ethics but actually have some kind of nuanced insight into the medical professions and how they work. But you don't and seeing you wrangle words is just sad, because it is stifling any actually fruitful discussion about the issue.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,735
615
118
Country
USA
Before I'd pass a law like this I'd want proof that it's practically impossible to get locked out of treatment because no available doctor will treat you.
I agree with this (with the obvious caveat that some people might want "treatments" that nobody should be willing to perform). I don't know this law is necessary, I don't care for unnecessary virtue signaling laws, but that is a practical consideration rather than a judgment of the conceptual virtue of the law. I will defend the concept for not being evil, but if you want to criticize this as a stupid waste of time, I'll buy that. I don't know if this law accomplishes anything, nor do I know if it would prevent anyone from getting the treatments they want, it might just do nothing for nobody.
No, he hasn't. Healthcare professionals obviously determine whether a treatment is appropriate or not, depending on research and a degree of their own expertise.
You cut my statement short, and decided not to include the part that said "unless there is a medical reason not to". I do not appreciate that.
because it is stifling any actually fruitful discussion about the issue.
What fruitful discussion are you expecting? A bunch of people saying "Do you think Arkansas sucks? Yes, I do think Arkansas sucks. I'm glad we agree." As much as people want to say "that's just semantics" as their argument, we are inevitably having a discussion about what discretion doctors should have into the treatments they perform and why, which seems 1000% more fruitful than circle-jerking.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,294
1,918
118
Country
United Kingdom
You cut my statement short, and decided not to include the part that said "unless there is a medical reason not to". I do not appreciate that.
That would be because in your post, that caveat came elsewhere. It wasn't actually attached to the claim I quoted.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
668
834
98
Country
Ireland
I agree with this (with the obvious caveat that some people might want "treatments" that nobody should be willing to perform). I don't know this law is necessary, I don't care for unnecessary virtue signaling laws, but that is a practical consideration rather than a judgment of the conceptual virtue of the law. I will defend the concept for not being evil, but if you want to criticize this as a stupid waste of time, I'll buy that. I don't know if this law accomplishes anything, nor do I know if it would prevent anyone from getting the treatments they want, it might just do nothing for nobody.

You cut my statement short, and decided not to include the part that said "unless there is a medical reason not to". I do not appreciate that.

What fruitful discussion are you expecting? A bunch of people saying "Do you think Arkansas sucks? Yes, I do think Arkansas sucks. I'm glad we agree." As much as people want to say "that's just semantics" as their argument, we are inevitably having a discussion about what discretion doctors should have into the treatments they perform and why, which seems 1000% more fruitful than circle-jerking.
You accuse Silvanus of cutting your post short and literally cut out all but the last few words, you don't even quote a full sentence, and don't engage any of the points being made about a hair transplant always being a medical procedure. What a joke of a person.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,097
4,287
118
Yes, and?

Edit: I'll be thorough and give a real response. Agema has, within this thread, both questioned the medical ethics of any health professional who might refuse to perform a medical treatment,
I'm spoilering the reply to this, because I think it's secondary to pointing out what you have tried here.

It is more than a little shifty to snip out the very important part of my comment explaining why pregnancy is a medical condition. This is especially inappropriate for you to do given the specific topic of the thread is Arkansas trying to interfere with provision of reproductive rights. Address it, please, rather than dodge it.

The decision whether to have a hair transplant is up to a patient, because the patient has autonomy. And yes, good cosmetic surgeons should refuse to treat where they believe it not in the patient's best interest: for instance excessive risk of harm for the benefit, or they have good reason to believe that it will fail to deal with the patient's problem. One might point out hair loss can have negative ramifications: image matters. Some people's financial wellbeing depends on their looks. It might adversely affect their relationships, or damage their self-image and self-esteem. This falls under "suffering"; the subjective appreciation of the patient holds weight. The doctor should have a proper rationale to refuse, and that rationale comes from scientific-medical evidence, not personal whim.

"Need" is not the answer you think it is. Few people truly "need" painkillers. So why prescribe them? Why not just leave them writhing in agony? They'll get over it, when their malady goes away ,or if they're unlucky and it's chronic just teach them to cope with it. And we could expand out a lot from there.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,234
1,666
118
This is yet another reason why i think religon is an outdated practice for humanity in general. I used to be helpful back when vikings could come fuck your shit up anytime they felt like it as a way of promoting tribalism.

But in today's world. Religon is bullshit and more often than not it is used as an oppressive tool not a beneficial one.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,201
214
68
Finland
I agree with this (with the obvious caveat that some people might want "treatments" that nobody should be willing to perform). I don't know this law is necessary, I don't care for unnecessary virtue signaling laws, but that is a practical consideration rather than a judgment of the conceptual virtue of the law. I will defend the concept for not being evil, but if you want to criticize this as a stupid waste of time, I'll buy that. I don't know if this law accomplishes anything, nor do I know if it would prevent anyone from getting the treatments they want, it might just do nothing for nobody.
Assuming it's not based on a roundabout way to segregate people (town officials only hire doctors that don't perform some specific things --> people that need those things gtfo --> townspeople's moral and religious views align closer together) and rather trying to get the ideal situation in which no doctor is forced to prescribe or give treatment that's against their morals. Denying birth control and abortion or any evidence-based medicine because of the doctor's religious views would drive a huge fault between religious and secular people. It seems like a bad thing in general; emphasis on denying service. Like, someone calls a clinic and they straight away say "don't come here". That's bad enough but imagine actually going to an appointment and getting a firm handshake and a hug instead of treatment: "I know the preferred practice but I'm against it so just these flyers for you". The preferred option would be that the doctor simply doesn't do certain calls, and resources permitting that'd be all good for everyone. Is there a perceived problem against getting that stuff sorted out without the need for a law? It's the US so I guess doctors can get fired or even sued for something like this, but that's just a guess.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,735
615
118
Country
USA
That would be because in your post, that caveat came elsewhere. It wasn't actually attached to the claim I quoted.
It's literally the same sentence.
You accuse Silvanus of cutting your post short and literally cut out all but the last few words, you don't even quote a full sentence, and don't engage any of the points being made about a hair transplant always being a medical procedure. What a joke of a person.
If someone responds to something I didn't say, I have no obligation to respond to it. I did not cut his message to a segment that changed the meaning, and Silvanus seems to stand by the choice to respond to what I didn't say, so you can't accuse me of changing the meaning.
I'm spoilering the reply to this, because I think it's secondary to pointing out what you have tried here.

It is more than a little shifty to snip out the very important part of my comment explaining why pregnancy is a medical condition. This is especially inappropriate for you to do given the specific topic of the thread is Arkansas trying to interfere with provision of reproductive rights. Address it, please, rather than dodge it.
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. The list of things that aren't medical conditions that can lead to injury or death is endless, and includes pregnancy. Hell, playing in the NFL can cause some serious injury, and they keep medical staff on hand for that reason, in case a player does happen to acquire a fresh medical condition, but you wouldn't call playing football itself a medical condition.

Now I have addressed the very important part, and you may continue to bemoan my semantic arguments.

The decision whether to have a hair transplant is up to a patient, because the patient has autonomy. And yes, good cosmetic surgeons should refuse to treat where they believe it not in the patient's best interest: for instance excessive risk of harm for the benefit, or they have good reason to believe that it will fail to deal with the patient's problem. One might point out hair loss can have negative ramifications: image matters. Some people's financial wellbeing depends on their looks. It might adversely affect their relationships, or damage their self-image and self-esteem. This falls under "suffering"; the subjective appreciation of the patient holds weight. The doctor should have a proper rationale to refuse, and that rationale comes from scientific-medical evidence, not personal whim.

"Need" is not the answer you think it is. Few people truly "need" painkillers. So why prescribe them? Why not just leave them writhing in agony? They'll get over it, when their malady goes away ,or if they're unlucky and it's chronic just teach them to cope with it. And we could expand out a lot from there.
Well, that's why in my statement on need, I said "with a broad enough definition of need". I understand that medically justified is much broader than life or death. I agree entirely with you on that.

I think you're applying multiple different standards here. You suggest that "it will be bad for your career" is a medical justification for a treatment, then should that not also be a medical justification for not refusal? That's hardly scientific-medical evidence, if a doctor were to say "I will not perform this shoulder surgery to give you back full range of motion because I don't think you can financially bear 6 weeks out of work." You're trying to maintain a broad, subjective definition of medical, should that also not make reason to refuse equally broad and subjective?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,735
615
118
Country
USA
Assuming it's not based on a roundabout way to segregate people (town officials only hire doctors that don't perform some specific things --> people than need those things gtfo --> townspeople's moral and religious views align closer together) and rather trying to get the ideal situation in which no doctor is forced to prescribe or give treatment that's against their morals. Denying birth control and abortion or any evidence-based medicine because of the doctor's religious views would drive a huge fault between religious and secular people. It seems like a bad thing in general; emphasis on denying service. Like, someone calls a clinic and they straight away say "don't come here". That's bad enough but imagine actually going to an appointment and getting a firm handshake and a hug instead of treatment: "I know the preferred practice but I'm against it so just these flyers for you". The preferred option would be that the doctor simply doesn't do certain calls, and resources permitting that'd be all good for everyone. Is there a perceived problem against getting that stuff sorted out without the need for a law? It's the US so I guess doctors can get fired or even sued for something like this, but that's just a guess.
Again, I don't know if there's an actual problem for this to solve. Though people in this thread have demonstrated the opposite is possible in other places, where people have been essentially banned from working as midwives for their moral objection to abortion, so that law just not getting involved seems like a potentially unstable situation.
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,645
2,032
118
Country
United States of America
Though people in this thread have demonstrated the opposite is possible in other places, where people have been essentially banned from practicing medicine for their moral objection to abortion, so that law just not getting involved seems like a potentially unstable situation.
You've done this a few times now, but it seems like a mistake to equate medicine as a whole with particular specialties. Most doctors don't perform abortions in the first place.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,735
615
118
Country
USA
You've done this a few times now, but it seems like a mistake to equate medicine as a whole with particular specialties. Most doctors don't perform abortions in the first place.
I definitely dispute the "done this several times" remark, but rereading what I was referring to, you are correct. Both instances were specifically midwives. I'll make that adjustment in my post promptly.