Right of Conscience

Kate Monster

The Right of Conscience Rule that the Lamest-of-Lame Duck President Bush issued takes effect today. Per this Rachel Maddow clip, it will allow anyone that works in any way in the health industry to refuse to do their jobs as it relates to procedures that they disagree with. This disgusting rule will allow doctors, secretaries, pharmacists, check out clerks, janitors, insurance provider staff,technical staff, etc. to refuse to do their jobs if they morally object to the procedure, patient, treatment, drug, etc. and they get to keep their jobs. This is outrageous. If you disagree with certain procedures, either work as a specialized provider to cater to freaks like you or do not work in the health industry at all. Your right to religious freedom ends at my need for medical care.

HungryJoe

[I]t will allow anyone that works in any way in the health industry to refuse to do their jobs as it relates to procedures that they disagree with. This disgusting rule will allow doctors, secretaries, pharmacists, check out clerks, janitors, insurance provider staff,technical staff, etc. to refuse to do their jobs if they morally object to the procedure, patient, treatment, drug, etc. and they get to keep their jobs.

If it will allow a health care worker to refuse to do his/her job if he/she objects to the patient, then maybe we can convince health care workers not to treat fundamentalist christians.

If I was a health care worker, I'd use this rule to go into semi-retirement. If anyone asked me to do my job, I'd just say, "Oh, I object on moral grounds to doing __________."

Omnutia

So does this mean some hospitals will be able to prevent abortions and the such like?

George Patches

I don't think this is that big of a deal. There's enough people working in the health care industry and enough jobs that need doing for them to shuffle people around and do whatever needs doing. It's hard to flip this around on you, but say you had a job and every once in a while you had to read the bible or whatever. I don't know, just think about the people who are actually religious, they're people too.

Omnutia

An interesting argument but you might want to consider how something like this would play into it.

Kate Monster

I don't think this is that big of a deal. There's enough people working in the health care industry and enough jobs that need doing for them to shuffle people around and do whatever needs doing. It's hard to flip this around on you, but say you had a job and every once in a while you had to read the bible or whatever. I don't know, just think about the people who are actually religious, they're people too.

If I had to be subjected to something i believed to be immoral, then I would take a job elsewhere, in fact, I did when I worked at a collection agency. If part of your job entails doing things you find immoral, find a new job. Period.
Moreover, the rule makes it so that you cannot switch people's jobs around. They get to keep their job, even if they are not doing said job. There are already reasonable protections for employees with religious beliefs. This is an unreasonable protection.

So does this mean some hospitals will be able to prevent abortions and the such like?

There are already hospitals that do not perform abortions. This means that someone that got a job at an abortion clinic can refuse to do their job and still keep their job.

Funfetus

I don't know that there's too much else to say, other than fuck that.

George Patches

An interesting argument but you might want to consider how something likethiswould play into it.

Ho, funny. You guys are so leftist it's scary. You're all logically correct, but the fact that the opposing argument is religion makes all use of logic null and void. These people don't care about your "logic," they care that they might burn in hell for helping kill an unborn child or some shit like that. Now you can keep going with your high and mighty, intellectually superior position or think a little bit about the what they other people think. Freedom of Religion is guaranteed in this country, you need to learn to coexist with these people.

If I had to be subjected to something i believed to be immoral, then I would take a job elsewhere, in fact, I did when I worked at a collection agency. If part of your job entails doing things you find immoral, find a new job. Period.
Moreover, the rule makes it so that you cannot switch people's jobs around. They get to keep their job, even if they are not doing said job. There are already reasonable protections for employees with religious beliefs. This is an unreasonable protection.

I don't think they are too many die-hard religious fanatics working in the health-care industry right now so I don't think you have to worry.

Bronzdragon

I know this might be a bit crackpot theorist to say but... could it be that Bush wants to make Obama look bad?

Viga

Bringing this up will start an interesting conversation with my mostly nurse/doctor/anything medical family. My stance on this is the same as Mrs. MacRoss. I wonder what they will say. I just love family debates lately. ^_^

Rym

I don't think this is that big of a deal. There's enough people working in the health care industry and enough jobs that need doing for them to shuffle people around and do whatever needs doing

It's a big problem in poor areas of the south, where the only pharmacy anywhere nearby has one fundamentalist pharmacist.

t's hard to flip this around on you, but say you had a job and every once in a while you had to read the bible or whatever.

If believing in a god was part of a job, then I wouldn't do that job. For example, if I worked as a priest, I would accept that I had to either pretend to believe in gods or simply not take the job in the first place. If a health care worker refuses to perform his expected duties, he should no longer be allowed to be a health care worker.

I don't know, just think about the people who are actually religious, they're people too.

Yes, but they shouldn't have special rights above and beyond those of non-religous people. If I tell my boss that I refuse to write code on Mondays because I'm lazy, I'd be fired. But, if I tell him the same thing because I believe in the Magic Code Man in the Sky, suddenly I get additional rights, and he has to accommodate me?

George Patches

If believing in a god was part of a job, then I wouldn't do that job. For example, if I worked as a priest, I would accept that I had to either pretend to believe in gods or simply not take the job in the first place. If a health care worker refuses to perform his expected duties, he should no longer be allowed to be a health care worker.

Again, this is hard to flip around because there's no atheist equivalent to eternal damnation.

Rym

Again, this is hard to flip around because there's no atheist equivalent to eternal damnation.

It's very hard to flip the circumstances of unreasonable people onto reasonable people, as the latter have reasonable expectations and reasonable responses to situations.

In this case, it's very easy to flip around. There's something I refuse to do. As such, I don't take any jobs that require me to do it, or I decide to do it anyway. Simple. Taking any other course of action is unreasonable on my part.

Kate Monster

I know this might be a bit crackpot theorist to say but... could it be that Bush wants to make Obama look bad?

No, it is a last minute attempt to make good on his ultra-conservative promise to fight abortion rights.

I don't think they are too many die-hard religious fanatics working in the health-care industry right now so I don't think you have to worry.

If one person is denied a blood transfusion and has to be transferred to another hospital or a new doctor has to be called in and that person is in anyway harmed or killed by that delay, then the cost is too high. If one person with AIDS is refused their medication at the pharmacist counter because the pharmacist believes AIDS to be God's retribution on sexual deviants and this makes those around the person aware of their private medical condition, then the cost is too high. If one health insurance worker refuses to fill out paperwork for a bone marrow transplant and the procedure is delayed while the other workers have to slough through their work in addition to the religious employee's work, then the cost is too high.

Apreche

gedavids, let me give you an argument against this that your conservative ways can agree with.

You want a free market economy right? You want freedom right? People should be able to quit their job at any time for any reason, and people should be able to be fired from their job at any time for any reason? I mean, you're an employer, you're paying someone. They refuse to do their job, yet you aren't allowed to fire them.

Freedom of religion means you are free to believe whatever you want, and free to express those beliefs. Notice how it's in the first amendment, the same one that guarantees freedom of speech and press? Freedom of religion does not mean that any action labled as religious is permitted. If your religion requires torturing people, that's not allowed. Likewise, if your religion bans paying taxes, that also isn't going to fly.

So why in the world is it ok to make a protectionary law that allows people to refuse do to their jobs and simultaneously not get fired? Think about this situation. Let's say someone has a religion of pacifism. They apply for a job at a military contractor. They then refuse to work, and it is impossible to fire them.

When you accept an offer for employment, you are entering a contractual agreement to fulfill the duties requested by your employer. If you agree to be a pharmacist, you contractually agree to dispense all medicines offered by that pharmacy. If you refuse to, or are unable, to carry out the duties contractually agreed upon, then your employer can penalize you in ways up to, and including, firing your ass. When you agree to play for a professional sports team, you agree to show up to practice. That's why you see players suspended and fined so often, for not meeting their obligations.

If you have a religious objection to one of the duties required by a particular job, then you should not have accepted the offer of employment. Different religions work differently, but even if a pharmacist refuses to give out birth control once hired, they agreed to do it when they accepted the job. I'm sure in some religions that agreement counts as already sinning or whatever.

We may label a policy like this as ultra-conservative, but it could not be further from conservative. The religious factions in this country have associated themselves with the Republican party, which was formerly right-leaning and conservative. This has created a semantic conception that religious policies are conservative and right-leaning as well. This could not be further from the truth. Religious policies are the most anti-freedom anti-conservative policies you can possibly make. If you look at the Nolan Chart (which libertarians love) religious driven policies almost always fall squarely in the statist/totalitarian quadrant.

Even though the Nolan chart is a crazy libertarian thing, I think it would be useful if we started using it. Not only will it stop misuse of terminology and labeling, but it will also be better marketing. Instead of calling things like this neo-conservative or ultra-conservative, which they are not, let us call them totalitarian or statist, which they are.

Kilarney

This is the problem when federal money is involved.

I believe strongly that a doctor (or anybody else) has the freedom to believe in whatever they want. I also believe that there should be ethical rules to ensure that doctors provide the best health care - no matter what they believe. If they don't want to do a procedure, that is fine. They just need to be honest with a patient. A patient has a right to know what their options are. This advice should be given without the influence of a religious bias.

While federal money should never be used to support religion, it should never require a person to engage in a practice that is against their religious beliefs.

Let the ethical rules within the profession handle religious issues. Insomuch as this rule makes it clear that the federal government will not interfere with one's freedom of expression - I'm all for it. I just demand that the profession itself enforce sufficient regulations to ensure that all patients receive appropriate and ethical medical care.

Funny how you guys invoke constitutional rights only when it's convenient.

I understand the obvious argument that a doctor can always eschew federal money if they believe that it would interfere with their right to religious freedom. However, in rural areas that are very religious, poor people would have less access to health care if doctors started declining federal money. That's a scary thought.

So in summary: Protect the poor by providing funding to ensure that they have the greatest access to health care possible. Protect the poor by ensuring that doctors don't impose their religious beliefs on their patients. Do this through rules of ethics and civil rights laws.

Kilarney

So why in the world is it ok to make a protectionary law that allows people to refuse do to their jobs and simultaneously not get fired?

A Pharmacy should be able to fire someone who is not willing to dispense birth control pills. No problem there. They should fire that person because it's their policy. However, if they are going to accept federal money, that money must in no way be used to support a company that requires its employees to forgo their right of religious expression.

Again, this is the problem when federal money is involved. Yes. A medical company should be able to fire a doctor that won't do legal procedures based on their religious beliefs. However, if that is the company's policy is not religious-neutral, they have no business accepting federal money to support their work.

Apreche

While federal money should never be used to support religion, it should never require a person to engage in a practice that is against their religious beliefs.

When you take the federal money, you are making a contractual agreement with the federal government to provide certain services. Either you need to reach a different agreement with the federal government as to which services they demand from you, or you should not have accepted the job.

If someone does accept a job, and then they decide they don't want to fulfill the required duties, that's fine. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense some birth control, they don't have to. You can't force them to do it. The employer can, if they so choose, fire them. It's not discrimination to fire someone who refuses to do their job.

This isn't a religous or freedom of speech issue here. This is a labor issue.

Kilarney

This isn't a religous or freedom of speech issue here. This is a labor issue.

I agree 100%. That's why the labor laws (and ethical rules, and civil rights laws) should control, not the funding itself.

My only concern is that the funding be neutral. If you are going to accept federal money, you can't use that money to limit a person's exercise of their religion. You can use whatever else you want (within the law) to limit it. You just can't have the money be the driving force.

Kate Monster

Funny how you guys invoke constitutional rights only when it's convenient.

Some constitutional rights, like some religious beliefs, are outdated. Others are still relevant and necessary. It isn't about convenience, it is about relevance.

Rym

However, if they are going to accept federal money, that money must in no way be used to support a company that requires its employees to forgo their right of religious expression.

So, if I claim that my religion prohibits me from doing a job, and that job is funded by federal money, then my claim must be accommodated no matter what?


Step 1: Get federally funded job.
Step 2: After hiring, "find religion."
Step 3: Religion requires no work before 10am and no physical labor, writing, or typing. It's also offensive for people to speak to me during working hours.
Step 4: Best job ever.

Kilarney

Some constitutional rights, like some religious beliefs, are outdated. Others are still relevant and necessary. It isn't about convenience, it is about relevance.

This is just pathetic.

Last time I checked, there is a way to change the constitution. I have no problem fighting for change. But the government must always adhere to the constitution as is stands. Period.

I think there are a few empty hotel rooms in Iran if you're upset by this concept. Talk to me after you've lived in a country where certain people get to decide what's "relevant" and what isn't. Let's see if you share the same opinion then.

Apreche

However, if they are going to accept federal money, that money must in no way be used to support a company that requires its employees to forgo their right of religious expression.

This is completely ludicrous. Think about this for a second. You've basically just said that the federal government can't give money to anybody ever. Christain Scientists (who are anything but scientists) are almost completely anti-medicine. I guess we'll just have to stop giving out vaccinations. Welcome back measles, mumps, polio, etc.! I guess federal money can't go to any place that has anything to do with alcohol alcohol because of islam. Can't go to any place that serves beef in the cafeteria because of hindus. I guess all government sponsored cafeterias need to have super glatt kosher food for the hacidic jews. I guess the whole federeal government has to shut down from Friday night until Sunday morning because of the Sabbath.

The correct policy should be that federal money should not go to anyone that forces religious policies. If a hospital was preventing its doctors from conducting legal medical procedures for religious reasons, then that would be a legitimate reason for them to not receive any federal money. If a hospital told the doctor to say a prayer for each patient, that would be a reason to not give them federal money. If a hospital was telling its doctors to conduct a certain procedure, that was otherwise legal and also in line with medical best practices and ethics, and the doctor refuses, that's just tough shit. Doctor is fired. It doesn't matter what the reason is, be it religion, laziness, or incpometence. Failure to meet complete your occupational responsibilities, especially in an important job like a doctor, is grounds for termination.

Kilarney

So, if I claim that my religion prohibits me from doing a job, and that job is funded by federal money, then my claim must be accommodated no matter what?

No at all. There should be rules in place that are independent of the funding source - that's all I'm saying.

And let me be clear... there is a real risk that this rule uses federal funding as a weapon to force companies into discriminating in favor religious expression. That's just as bad.

TheWhaleShark

If the establishment in question is using public funds of any sort for their work, they should be obligated to provide whatever services are required.

If the establishment in question does not receive ANY public funds for said work, they can refuse service to whomever they wish. They might be douchebags, but that's the way it ought to be.

Here's what I want to know: why limit this to just the healthcare industry? By this logic, a Muslim cashier at a grocery store should be allowed to not ring out any pork products. A vegan animal rights activist should be allowed to not ring out any animal products at all.

In fact, I have strongly held beliefs regarding unnecessary service to other people. I don't want to serve anyone at all, but I still want to get paid.

You see why this is stupid now?

Omnutia

Step 1: Get federally funded job.
Step 2: After hiring, "find religion."
Step 3: Religion requires no work before 10am and no physical labor, writing, or typing. It's also offensive for people to speak to me during working hours.
Step 4: Best job ever.

I was also contemplating similar action.

George Patches

If one person is denied a blood transfusion and has to be transferred to another hospital or a new doctor has to be called in and that person is in anyway harmed or killed by that delay, then the cost is too high. If one person with AIDS is refused their medication at the pharmacist counter because the pharmacist believes AIDS to be God's retribution on sexual deviants and this makes those around the person aware of their private medical condition, then the cost is too high. If one health insurance worker refuses to fill out paperwork for a bone marrow transplant and the procedure is delayed while the other workers have to slough through their work in addition to the religious employee's work, then the cost is too high.

I HATE the "one life is too high a cost" argument! It's fucking bullshit, people die all the fucking time in this world. Liberals use it to justify all kinds of stupid shit, like the ban on assualt weapons.

gedavids, let me give you an argument against this that your conservative ways can agree with............

I'm not going to clutter the thread quoting your whole post.

Scott, thanks for that, but I'm not 100% for this. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate today, though not as eloquently as I'd like. I took umbrage with this because I think everyone here is thinking about this from the perspective of the patient, basically a "blah blah blah ME!" position. Religion and abortion rights are the low hanging fruit in this debate, but this is issue is far larger and greater than that. My father is a healthcare provider, and I want people to at the very least considering the position of healthcare workers. Frivolous law suits over stupid shit happen all the time. Healthcare workers are legally sticking their necks out every day to help people. What this does is provide some legal protection if they decide not to do something for whatever reason.

Kilarney

If the establishment in question is using public funds of any sort for their work, they should be obligated to provide whatever services are required.

Agreed. As long as those services do not further religion. (e.g.: No federal money to build a church.)

If the establishment in question does not receive ANY public funds for said work, they can refuse service to whomever they wish. They might be douchebags, but that's the way it ought to be.

Agreed.

Here's what I want to know: why limit this to just the healthcare industry? By this logic, a Muslim cashier at a grocery store should be allowed to not ring out any pork products. A vegan animal rights activist should be allowed to not ring out any animal products at all.

That should be up to the company. As long as they are acting within the law, the company should be able to do whatever it wants.

All I'm saying is that federal money should not change this equation. By doing so, it's by definition, either hindering religious expression or furthering it.

The only footnote is that federal money must never go to programs that are associated with religion. Period. Even if there are no strings attached, it's still wrong.

Apreche

Religious policy is a one-way street. Religions expression can not be disciminated against. That includes, speech, press, etc. Everything else is secular and religion is completely ignored. The government must make its policies and decisions based on completely secular reasoning. To allow any change to policy be made for a religious reason it not allowed. It doesn't matter if that is the addition or subtraction of obligations.

The secular law decides that killing people is not ok. Your murder religion doesn't get you off the hook.
The secular law says that when you accept a job, you can be fired for not carrying out your agreed upon duties. Your religion doesn't get you off the hook.

Kate Monster

Some constitutional rights, like some religious beliefs, are outdated. Others are still relevant and necessary. It isn't about convenience, it is about relevance.

This is just pathetic.

Last time I checked, there is a way to change the constitution. I have no problem fighting for change. But the government must always adhere to the constitution as is stands. Period.

I think there are a few empty hotel rooms in Iran if you're upset by this concept. Talk to me after you've lived in a country where certain people get to decide what's "relevant" and what isn't. Let's see if you share the same opinion then.

Look, I am not saying that we should stop the democratic process from happening. I am just saying that I do not think certain aspects of the constitution are relevant. I believe they should be changed and work within the law to promote these ideas and help support that change. I never advocated in any way that the constitution be changed outside of the legal structure.
Moreover, I live in a democracy and people do get to decide what is and is not relevant. I am one of those people.
Stop the childishness and stop spinning this off into an anti-American rant that it isn't. Don't put words in my mouth, as I have never put words in yours. I afford you courtesy, I expect the same.

Kilarney

The government must make its policies and decisions based on completely secular reasoning.

No argument there. That's why I'm concerned that this rule swings too far the other way.