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 notchangethis equation. By doing so, it's by definition, either hindering religious expression or furthering it.
Agreed. I may very well disagree with a Walgreens pharmacist who decides not to give out Plan B, and I think that pharmacist should lose his license, but Walgreens should still allow that pharmacist to make that decision.
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 "bah bah bah 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.
I would agree with this, except doctors and the like take an oath that says they're going to help people. Even if you disagree with what someone wants to do, if their healthcare is in your hands, you must do what they want you to do. Yes, it is selfish on the part of the patient, but that's the nature of the doctor/patient relationship.
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.
Oh really? What part of the constitution do you think needs changing?
Listen, we're on the same side of this argument, but your reasoning is all off. The constitution as written is completely on our side. Don't go down the path you are on. Stick to the arguments on personal freedom, contractual obligation, and labor. Stick with the fact that freedom of religion is limited to religious expression, but not action or inaction that may or may not have a religious excuse backing it up.
--Half Time-- So, Do people think Obama & co. are going to repeal this one?
Yes, and the new congress will also fight it. It will just bog everyone down because reversing this and Bush's other last minute rules will take time. This substantially eats into Obama's first year in office to initiate any other changes. This hampers Obama's agenda and I guarantee you that the Bush is betting that the delay will bring down Democrats' approval ratings for the next round of elections in 2 years.
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.
An employer is not required to provide an accommodation that causes it an “undue hardship.†The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this means that an employer need not incur more than minimal costs in order to accommodate an employee’s religious practices.5 The EEOC has interpreted this to mean that an employer can show that a requested accommodation causes it an undue hardship if accommodating an employee’s religious practices requires anything more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes coworkers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
I would agree with this, except doctors and the like take an oath that says they're going to help people. Even if you disagree with what someone wants to do, if their healthcare is in your hands, youmustdo what they want you to do. Yes, itisselfish on the part of the patient, but that's the nature of the doctor/patient relationship.
No, they take an oath to do no harm, not do whatever the patient wants. What if what the patient wants is something the doctor considers an unnecessary risk to their live? What if they sue because he won't do it? This kind of shit happens all the time in the healthcare industry and it's fucking bullshit.
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.
Oh really? What part of the constitution do you think needs changing?
Listen, we're on the same side of this argument, but your reasoning is all off. The constitution as written is completely on our side. Don't go down the path you are on. Stick to the arguments on personal freedom, contractual obligation, and labor. Stick with the fact that freedom of religion is limited to religious expression, but not action or inaction that may or may not have a religious excuse backing it up.
I was referencing the right to bare arms only. I completely agree that the constitution is on our side. I was reacting to his statement in a vacuum, not in the context of this argument. My reasoning is fine. EDIT: Remember that I argued with you in person and in the forums for religious freedoms to be reasonably protected in the work place. Key word being reasonably.
I was referencing the right to bare arms only. I completely agree that the constitution is on our side. I was reacting to his statement in a vacuum, not in the context of this argument. My reasoning is fine.
That's funny, cause the 2nd amendment wasn't the focus of that statement at all.
What counts as a religious belief that needs to be accommodated? Although the law requires that employers must accommodate “sincerely held†religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements, courts rarely question either the sincerity or religiosity of a particular belief. The law’s intention is to provide protection and accommodation for a broad spectrum of religious practices and belief – not merely those beliefs based upon organized or recognized teachings of a particular religion. Therefore, religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others to be entitled to protection and courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim. In short, the fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief.
However, it is equally clear that Title VII was intended only to protect and accommodate individuals with sincere religious beliefs and not those with political or other beliefs unrelated to religion. Thus, the religious accommodation rules do not apply to requirements based on personal preferences rooted in non-theological bases such as culture, heritage or politics.
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.
Oh really? What part of the constitution do you think needs changing?
Listen, we're on the same side of this argument, but your reasoning is all off. The constitution as written is completely on our side. Don't go down the path you are on. Stick to the arguments on personal freedom, contractual obligation, and labor. Stick with the fact that freedom of religion is limited to religious expression, but not action or inaction that may or may not have a religious excuse backing it up.
Scott, be quiet!
Please, Mrs. Macross, answer that question. What rights do you think should be taken out of the constitution because they are no longer relevant? Since you're arguing a religious topic, surely you believe that the following provision is no longer relevant: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
So is it true that you feel that this language in our constitution is no longer relevant? If not, then why are you wasting our time with such an argument?
I was referencing the right to bare arms only. I completely agree that the constitution is on our side. I was reacting to his statement in a vacuum, not in the context of this argument. My reasoning is fine.
That's funny, cause the 2nd amendment wasn't the focus of that statement at all.
When liberals are attacked for picking and choosing constitutional amendments, the 2nd amendment is usually the topic. He provided no context for his accusation about citing the constitution. I also think there is nothing inherently wrong with agreeing with some aspects of the constitution, and not others.
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.
Oh really? What part of the constitution do you think needs changing?
Listen, we're on the same side of this argument, but your reasoning is all off. The constitution as written is completely on our side. Don't go down the path you are on. Stick to the arguments on personal freedom, contractual obligation, and labor. Stick with the fact that freedom of religion is limited to religious expression, but not action or inaction that may or may not have a religious excuse backing it up.
Scott, be quiet!
Please, Mrs. Macross, answer that question. What rights do you think should be taken out of the constitution because they are no longer relevant? Since you're arguing a religious topic, surely you believe that the following provision is no longer relevant: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
So is it true that you feel that this language in our constitution is no longer relevant? If not, then why are you wasting our time with such an argument?
This is going to be great...
I already answered this, the right to bear arms is my point of contention. You provided no specifics as to what you thought we were picking and choosing, so I assumed what any liberal would given that open ended and often used comment. I believe that the right to practice one's religion should be upheld to as much of a reasonable extent as is possible.
No, they take an oath to do no harm, not do whatever the patient wants. What if what the patient wants is something the doctor considers an unnecessary risk to their live? What if they sue because he won't do it? This kind of shit happens all the time in the healthcare industry and it's fucking bullshit.
Name a lawsuit in which a patient sued a doctor for not performing a procedure or prescribing a drug that the doctor considered an unecessary risk to the patient's life and in which the patient prevailed.
I'm still waiting for someone to refute the "it's a legal defense to frivolous law suits." argument. You guys went off on your religion tangent. And again, not 100%, "OMG thank god he did this!" It's not the greatest thing ever, but it's not the worst.
"Not the worst thing" that George W. Bush ever did is hardly a glowing endorsement. As to the other point, I'm not going to try to refute that, because I don't know much about that issue, but I've seen a whole lot of Christians in the media, super-stoked that they can stop more people from getting birth control and abortions, and not a single health-care provider saying anything about lawsuits.
I would agree with this, except doctors and the like take an oath that says they're going to help people. Even if you disagree with what someone wants to do, if their healthcare is in your hands, youmustdo what they want you to do. Yes, itisselfish on the part of the patient, but that's the nature of the doctor/patient relationship.
No, they take an oath to do no harm, not do whatever the patient wants. What if what the patient wants is something the doctor considers an unnecessary risk to their live? What if they sue because he won't do it? This kind of shit happens all the time in the healthcare industry and it's fucking bullshit.
OK, I can somewhat concede that point. A doctor should use his professional judgement to assess whether or not a given treatment is appropriate to a patient's well-being, and he should not be held accountable for using his professional judgement to deny a potentially hazardous treatment to a belligerent patient, nor should he be subject to a lawsuit for doing so.
However, we're not talking about the doctor considering the patient's well-being, we're talking about a law that allows a doctor to withhold treatment because he personally disagrees with said treatment. This has nothing to do with the patient's health at all. If he could provide some medical reason why withholding treatment is necessary, then I'd be all for that, but if all he can say is, "I don't like people getting abortions," tough fucking shit. That's the problem with this law.
A private employermust reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
Yes, Mr. laywer. I know that's what the law is. I just think that law is bullshit.
When you discriminate against someone based on genetics, (which includes gender, skin color, etc.), that is wrong. Why is it wrong? It is wrong because a person doesn't choose their genetics. It is unfair to discriminate based upon an immutable factor. Also, in the vast majority of cases, genetics have no causal relationship with job performance. If you have two computer scientists, with equal resumes and qualifications, but are of different genders and races, are not literally 100% equal. But as far as an employer is concerned, they are 100% equal, because an employer evaluates only criteria that actually matter. In the cases where genetics do make a difference in job performance, such as professional athletes, the gentic difference will be made evident in the person's qualifications. Someone who is genetically better at throwing a ball will have a better resume, so there is no need to examine them genetically when making a hiring decision.
When you discriminate against someone based on religion, it is pretty much the exact opposite. Religion is chosen. It is not immutable. Taking any job will require you to change in some way, so it is only unfair if they require you to change what can not be changed. Also, religion can and does interfere with job performance. Let's say two candidates come in. One is a qualified Christian, who is only sort of Christian and doesn't care about going to church. The other candidate is a slightly more qualified Jew who is very religious, and refuses to work Friday night and Saturday. The job is a weekend job that gets off Tuesday and Wednesday. Of course I have to hire the Christian.
I'm not discriminating based upon their beliefs or speech. Their right to religious expression is not infringed upon on in any way. I'm not choosing the Christian because I am a Jew hater. I'm not choosing because I disagree or agree with their beliefs. I'm choosing the Christian because he will do the job as required, and the Jew will not. I'm making a completely secular labor decision, religion just happens to be the reason for the difference between the candidates.
If I open up a CVS, I need to hire a pharmacist. A candidate comes in who is very qualified, but refuses to dispense certain medications for religious reasons. It doesn't matter that they are religious reasons. I'm not going to hire them because they are not willing to do the job as I, the employer, require it to be done. Religion has no part in it.
The constitution grants freedom of speech, including religous speech. It does not grant freedom of action. You can not do, or refuse to do, whatever you want, with no consequences, just because you use religious belief as an excuse. You are subject to the same secular rules, regulations, freedoms, and limitations that everyone else is subject to. Allowing religious belief to be a valid loophole around those rules, regulations, freedoms, and limitations is a violation of equal protection under the law, and I would argue it is actually discrimination against those who do not have religious beliefs.
Let's look at this from another angle here.
Let's say I have a job. There is also a hacidic jew who has the exact same job as I do. For all intents and purposes, we do our jobs equally well. However, the Hacidic Jew takes off early on Friday, and doesn't work Saturday, and doesn't have to use vacation days for this. It's a 7-day a week job, by the way. I tell my employer it is not fair, and that I too would also like to leave early one day a week, and take off one day a week. The employer refuses to allow this. If the employer fired the hacid for not coming to work, you people would say he's discriminating against jews, but in the current situation he's discriminating against non-jews! It's discrimination to allow a religious excuse, but it's also discrimination to disallow the religious excuse!
The only fair way to do things is to treat all employees equally, regardless of religion. Religion can not be a reason for anything. It must be completely ignored. Only secular reasoning may be used. If an employee wants to neglect duties, and not get fired, they need a valid secular reason for it that can apply to any other employee. If an employee validates the contract of their employment, that is grounds for termination. Religious reasons can not come into it. They need a secular reason. Everything must be 100% secular, religions can not be used as a reason for anything. That is the only true way to have no discrimination.
I see we are in disagreement, Kilarney. Knives or pistols?
I don't understand. No one needs to wear short sleeves in our modern, climate controlled society, just give up your right to bare arms.
Name a lawsuit in which a patient sued a doctor for not performing a procedure or prescribing a drug that the doctor considered an unecessary risk to the patient's life in which the patient prevailed.
I'm still waiting for someone to refute the "it's a legal defense to frivolous law suits." argument. You guys went off on your religion tangent. And again, not 100%, "OMG thank god he did this!" It's not the greatest thing ever, but it's not the worst.
It actually opens up major medical institutions to more law suits, and these would not be frivolous. People that seek medical attention and are denied it on the basis of someone else's beliefs will sue - a lot.
However, we're not talking about the doctor considering the patient's well-being, we're talking about a law that allows a doctor to withhold treatment because hepersonallydisagrees with said treatment. This has nothing to do with the patient's health at all. If he could provide some medical reason why withholding treatment is necessary, then I'd be all for that, but if all he can say is, "I don't like people getting abortions," tough fucking shit. That's the problem with this law.
Again, I'm going to go back to the fact that a doctor, legally sticks his neck out every time he does anything. If a doctor finds a procedure morally questionable, why should he be forced to incur the legal risk if he doesn't think it's right? I'm not talking about situations where death is not imminent. The ER is a whole different ball of wax and any doctor I've met (and I've met a lot) will do whatever they think is the best thing to save a patient at that point.
t actually opens up major medical institutions to more law suits, and these would not be frivolous. People that seek medical attention and are denied it on the basis of someone else's beliefs will sue - a lot.
They're already suing a lot. This legislation is addressing the issue and coming down on the side of healthcare providers.
Complain all you want about a doctor refusing to prescribe birth control, you don't really need it.
Name a lawsuit in which a patient sued a doctor for not performing a procedure or prescribing a drug that the doctor considered an unecessary risk to the patient's life and in which the patient prevailed.
1. It does not name an actual lawsuit. 2. The journal is from Australia, about Australian law. 3. The article says that people may sue for something that was done to them, not for something that they wanted to have done but couldn't have done because the doctor refuses due to concerns that the patient's desires were life-threatening. That's what you were talking about.
Here's what you said:
No, they take an oath to do no harm, not do whatever the patient wants. What if what the patient wants is something the doctor considers an unnecessary risk to their live? What if they sue because he won't do it? This kind of shit happens all the time in the healthcare industry and it's fucking bullshit.
I'm just asking you to prove it.
t actually opens up major medical institutions to more law suits, and these would not be frivolous. People that seek medical attention and are denied it on the basis of someone else's beliefs will sue - a lot.
They're already suing a lot. This legislation is addressing the issue and coming down on the side of healthcare providers.
here's a couple of things wrong with this response:
1. It does not name an actual lawsuit. 2. The journal is from Australia, about Australian law. 3. The article says that people may sue forsomething that was donetothem, not for something that theywanted to have donebut couldn't have done because the doctor refuse due to concerns that the patient's desires were life-threatening. That's what you were talking about.
Yeah I know........I couldn't find anything.....but malpractice lawsuits don't make the news much unless they're really bizarre.
A private employer must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
Let's create a hypothetical situation here.
I'm an employer. I have two employees from two different religions. One employee has the reasonable religious belief that that they must pray before a small idol twice a day. That's fine by me. You can bring your idol in, and pray to it twice a day. Doesn't take too much time, and I'll let every other employee have equal amounts of break time, so it's fair.
I hire another employee. That employee has the reasonable religious belief that they can not be in the presence of any idols. Idols are a sin, and it is a sin to look upon any physical representation of any god or gods. I don't think it's too unreasonable to create a workplace that lacks religious idols. It's not hard to keep them out.
Now I'm required by law to do two contradictory things. Bullshit strikes again. This is what happens when you allow religion to be used as an excuse.
The correct answer is that I am the employer. I decide what your job is, and I decide the rules of the workplace. Those rules are based on totally secular reasoning. If you follow the rules and carry out your job, all good. If you don't, no good. I don't care what the reason is, it doesn't matter. If you refused to do a job because you hate the client, you're fired. If you refuse to do a job because of religious reasons, you're fired.
You know, it's funny how the law contradicts itself in this way. People actually don't have freedom of speech in the workplace.
Generally, employees of private sector employers have no constitutional “free speech†rights in the workplace, so take pause before you wrap yourself in the flag and speak your mind. In both Geary v. U.S. Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171, 319 A.2d 174 (1974) and Wagner v. General Elec. Co., 760 F.Supp. 1146 (E.D. Pa. 1991), Pennsylvania courts rejected wrongful discharge claims based on First Amendment protects asserted by employees who were terminated for criticisms of their employers.
As I said before, the right to religious expression is in that very same amendement. Religious speech is part of free speech. In other words, the US law contradicts itself. One law says that your right to religious expression does not go into the workplace. Another law says that employers must reasonably accommodate it. You know what side I'm on.
I'm still waiting for someone to refute the "it's a legal defense to frivolous law suits." argument. You guys went off on your religion tangent. And again, not 100%, "OMG thank god he did this!" It's not the greatest thing ever, but it's not the worst.
It actually opens up major medical institutions to more law suits, and these would not be frivolous. People that seek medical attention and are denied it on the basis of someone else's beliefs will sue - a lot.
Here's an example: a pregnant woman goes into labor early, but there are complications. The doctor is faced with a choice: abort the baby and save the mother, or proceed with the procedure, lose the mother, and probably lose the baby. He proceeds with the latter option, using his religious beliefs as a basis. Mom dies, and the husband sues the fuck out of the doctor. Tell me how anything in that scenario is acceptable.
Giving doctors the option to deny healthcare to a patient for anything other than a valid medical reason is directly in violation of their duties to the patient. Every version of the oath (and various updates to it) places duty to the patient at the forefront of the doctor's mind.
EDIT: If data are scarce, then your point is weak. Get more data or abandon the point. A doctor sticks his neck out every time he does something and every time he does not do something. Err on the side of the patient, not the doctor. That's the point of the medical profession.
Comments
So, Do people think Obama & Co. are going to repeal this one?
Listen, we're on the same side of this argument, but your reasoning is all off. The constitution as written is completely on our side. Don't go down the path you are on. Stick to the arguments on personal freedom, contractual obligation, and labor. Stick with the fact that freedom of religion is limited to religious expression, but not action or inaction that may or may not have a religious excuse backing it up.
A private employer must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
EDIT: Remember that I argued with you in person and in the forums for religious freedoms to be reasonably protected in the work place. Key word being reasonably.
Please, Mrs. Macross, answer that question. What rights do you think should be taken out of the constitution because they are no longer relevant? Since you're arguing a religious topic, surely you believe that the following provision is no longer relevant:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
So is it true that you feel that this language in our constitution is no longer relevant? If not, then why are you wasting our time with such an argument?
This is going to be great...
Back to the original point of the thread: Does anyone besides gedavis think this is a good thing?
And again, not 100%, "OMG thank god he did this!" It's not the greatest thing ever, but it's not the worst.
However, we're not talking about the doctor considering the patient's well-being, we're talking about a law that allows a doctor to withhold treatment because he personally disagrees with said treatment. This has nothing to do with the patient's health at all. If he could provide some medical reason why withholding treatment is necessary, then I'd be all for that, but if all he can say is, "I don't like people getting abortions," tough fucking shit. That's the problem with this law.
When you discriminate against someone based on genetics, (which includes gender, skin color, etc.), that is wrong. Why is it wrong? It is wrong because a person doesn't choose their genetics. It is unfair to discriminate based upon an immutable factor. Also, in the vast majority of cases, genetics have no causal relationship with job performance. If you have two computer scientists, with equal resumes and qualifications, but are of different genders and races, are not literally 100% equal. But as far as an employer is concerned, they are 100% equal, because an employer evaluates only criteria that actually matter. In the cases where genetics do make a difference in job performance, such as professional athletes, the gentic difference will be made evident in the person's qualifications. Someone who is genetically better at throwing a ball will have a better resume, so there is no need to examine them genetically when making a hiring decision.
When you discriminate against someone based on religion, it is pretty much the exact opposite. Religion is chosen. It is not immutable. Taking any job will require you to change in some way, so it is only unfair if they require you to change what can not be changed. Also, religion can and does interfere with job performance. Let's say two candidates come in. One is a qualified Christian, who is only sort of Christian and doesn't care about going to church. The other candidate is a slightly more qualified Jew who is very religious, and refuses to work Friday night and Saturday. The job is a weekend job that gets off Tuesday and Wednesday. Of course I have to hire the Christian.
I'm not discriminating based upon their beliefs or speech. Their right to religious expression is not infringed upon on in any way. I'm not choosing the Christian because I am a Jew hater. I'm not choosing because I disagree or agree with their beliefs. I'm choosing the Christian because he will do the job as required, and the Jew will not. I'm making a completely secular labor decision, religion just happens to be the reason for the difference between the candidates.
If I open up a CVS, I need to hire a pharmacist. A candidate comes in who is very qualified, but refuses to dispense certain medications for religious reasons. It doesn't matter that they are religious reasons. I'm not going to hire them because they are not willing to do the job as I, the employer, require it to be done. Religion has no part in it.
The constitution grants freedom of speech, including religous speech. It does not grant freedom of action. You can not do, or refuse to do, whatever you want, with no consequences, just because you use religious belief as an excuse. You are subject to the same secular rules, regulations, freedoms, and limitations that everyone else is subject to. Allowing religious belief to be a valid loophole around those rules, regulations, freedoms, and limitations is a violation of equal protection under the law, and I would argue it is actually discrimination against those who do not have religious beliefs.
Let's look at this from another angle here.
Let's say I have a job. There is also a hacidic jew who has the exact same job as I do. For all intents and purposes, we do our jobs equally well. However, the Hacidic Jew takes off early on Friday, and doesn't work Saturday, and doesn't have to use vacation days for this. It's a 7-day a week job, by the way. I tell my employer it is not fair, and that I too would also like to leave early one day a week, and take off one day a week. The employer refuses to allow this. If the employer fired the hacid for not coming to work, you people would say he's discriminating against jews, but in the current situation he's discriminating against non-jews! It's discrimination to allow a religious excuse, but it's also discrimination to disallow the religious excuse!
The only fair way to do things is to treat all employees equally, regardless of religion. Religion can not be a reason for anything. It must be completely ignored. Only secular reasoning may be used. If an employee wants to neglect duties, and not get fired, they need a valid secular reason for it that can apply to any other employee. If an employee validates the contract of their employment, that is grounds for termination. Religious reasons can not come into it. They need a secular reason. Everything must be 100% secular, religions can not be used as a reason for anything. That is the only true way to have no discrimination.
Complain all you want about a doctor refusing to prescribe birth control, you don't really need it.
1. It does not name an actual lawsuit.
2. The journal is from Australia, about Australian law.
3. The article says that people may sue for something that was done to them, not for something that they wanted to have done but couldn't have done because the doctor refuses due to concerns that the patient's desires were life-threatening. That's what you were talking about.
Here's what you said: I'm just asking you to prove it. Again, name these suits.
I'm an employer. I have two employees from two different religions. One employee has the reasonable religious belief that that they must pray before a small idol twice a day. That's fine by me. You can bring your idol in, and pray to it twice a day. Doesn't take too much time, and I'll let every other employee have equal amounts of break time, so it's fair.
I hire another employee. That employee has the reasonable religious belief that they can not be in the presence of any idols. Idols are a sin, and it is a sin to look upon any physical representation of any god or gods. I don't think it's too unreasonable to create a workplace that lacks religious idols. It's not hard to keep them out.
Now I'm required by law to do two contradictory things. Bullshit strikes again. This is what happens when you allow religion to be used as an excuse.
The correct answer is that I am the employer. I decide what your job is, and I decide the rules of the workplace. Those rules are based on totally secular reasoning. If you follow the rules and carry out your job, all good. If you don't, no good. I don't care what the reason is, it doesn't matter. If you refused to do a job because you hate the client, you're fired. If you refuse to do a job because of religious reasons, you're fired.
You know, it's funny how the law contradicts itself in this way. People actually don't have freedom of speech in the workplace. As I said before, the right to religious expression is in that very same amendement. Religious speech is part of free speech. In other words, the US law contradicts itself. One law says that your right to religious expression does not go into the workplace. Another law says that employers must reasonably accommodate it. You know what side I'm on.
Giving doctors the option to deny healthcare to a patient for anything other than a valid medical reason is directly in violation of their duties to the patient. Every version of the oath (and various updates to it) places duty to the patient at the forefront of the doctor's mind.
EDIT: If data are scarce, then your point is weak. Get more data or abandon the point. A doctor sticks his neck out every time he does something and every time he does not do something. Err on the side of the patient, not the doctor. That's the point of the medical profession.