Professor's got it right
-
The patients sexual orientation does in fact have no influence on their health. The only groups out of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum where you have some "right to deny" healthcare may be trans and intersex people due to them having special conditions and you might not have the knowledge to treat them accordingly. For the rest you are just batshit stupid if you care that much about what people do in their private time.
I partly disagree with your reasoning but I agree 100% with your conclusion..
I think that statistically heterosexual women have some significantly different healthcare needs than lesbian women and gay men and straight men also have some statistical differences, but as a healthcare professional you have no right whatsoever to refuse to treat based on those differences.
(I wouldn't count referral to a specialist as a refusal to treat.)
-
Or they're bi. I grew up ultra religious and the choice explanation made more sense to me because I had both homo and hetero urges, and I assumed it was the same for everyone (I thought of people who claimed otherwise as self-righteous). In my mind at the time homosexual urges were just part of people's sinful nature they had to overcome. The whole thing only seems so incoherent from an outside perspective, which I was fortunately able to arrive at after experiencing the world more.
Yeah I bet that was confusing. Being brought up that homosexuality was a choice and you had feelings for both would have been difficult at best, especially before you had a chance to really see how it all worked.
-
What if I wanna be a chaotic-good doctor and deny nazis treatment?
You're a doctor not a judge. Criminals deserve treatment even the worst ones.
-
think so
well then, you’re fucking wrong.
also “save life” different than “attempt”
Answer the ultimatum. That's all I ask.
-
This post did not contain any content.
And then everybody clapped.
-
Answer the ultimatum. That's all I ask.
your ultimatum was impossible to answer and absurd, so no.
-
A soldier's job includes disobeying illegal orders. That's the law. Try again.
Prior to the Nuremberg trials individual responsibility for disobeying unlawful orders was an implicit judgement and not explicitly stated.
And if we look at examples of people using the defence of I was disobeying orders due to them being in violation of international law they got arrested and locked up for the rest of their life (see David McBride).
-
Someone being LGBT doesn’t mean McDonald’s is allowed to refuse them service, or ESSO is allowed to refuse to sell them gas, or a gym can refuse them membership.
Patience, patience ... the GOP is working on this as well.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Technically they aren't. By their plan, someone who is LGBT couldn't be refused service at McDonalds because they are to be arrested and thrown in jail on sight. Like, how would they have even gotten into McDonalds much less have the gall to ask for a Big Mac?...
-
This post did not contain any content.
It is sad that this is apparently considered to be impressive or even noteworthy.
-
To be fair, if you don't want to follow orders without question, you will find being a foot soldier particularly unpleasant.
But your moral equivalence between following orders to kill without question and saving lives and healing people without question is utterly bogus and broken.
I swapped the word for one profession with the word of another. In ancient Greek the word technē often used in philosophical discussion such as this was used for both interchangeably.
Why is it utterly bogus and broken. Ur opinion does not negate mine lest u have an argument to back your claim.
-
Wasn't there a bakery that won a case allowing them not to sell wedding cakes to gay couples?
No. The supreme court case you're thinking of only ruled that the state commission acted unfairly towards the bakery, not necessarily that the bakery was right or wrong in their discrimination.
-
This post did not contain any content.
ah yes, i too considered being a doctor so i can feel comfortable in my job. but then i realized when I'm treating a severed limb in an accident trying to stop buckets of blood flowing, that the person might be gay. ew, imagine. so i decided it's not worth it.
-
A friend of mine is a devout Muslim from a very conservative family and a doctor: he believes that his faith has no place in his job and therefore treats all his patients equally.
I think fundamentalists of all religions should take a leaf out of his book.
His faith demands he treat all patients equally:
"whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity" Qur'an 5:32
Nor can he impose his beliefs on others:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion" Qur'an 2:256
-
I mean they didn't. "Do your job or do something else" and "I'm just following orders" are worlds apart.
One is expressing the opinion that if a person freely chooses a profession but then refuses to practice it for asinine reasons they should choose a different profession because they are incapable of doing the job correctly.
The other is an excuse Nazi's used to justify the shit they did.
Not the same.
The real problem here is that allowing medical professionals to pick and choose like you describe based on their personal values will lead to people dying. That's the entire reason for the Hippocratic oath, to provide an unbiased framework of ethics under which physicians practice.
Hypothetically, say you're straight, have a one night stand with your preferred gender and get AIDS. You feel sick go to a doctor and they refuse to treat you because AIDS is the "gay" disease and since you have AIDS, you must be gay and this Doctor doesn't "agree with that lifestyle." So you ask for one who does, turns out you're in a Catholic hospital and no one "agrees with that lifestyle" here. Sorry, you're fucked and maybe have to drive a few hours for treatment now because of some judgmental assholes. Or you die from AIDS because you live in America, in a red state, where you have no other options.
That phrase btw? The one about lifestyles? That's a fucking dog whistle.
I mean they didn't. "Do your job or do something else" and "I'm just following orders" are worlds apart.
They are both an appeal to a moral framework higher than themselves.
One is expressing the opinion that if a person freely chooses a profession but then refuses to practice it for asinine reasons they should choose a different profession because they are incapable of doing the job correctly.
If I'm a bricklayer I can refuse services for any asinine reason I want that's just liberty, personal autonomy, and free will. Why is any other progression any different.
The other is an excuse Nazi's used to justify the shit they did.
Yep an excuse of I could not refuse "service" because I was told I had to because i had no liberty to do otherwise. The service of medics is healthcare the service of a soldier is death.
Not the same.
The parallels similar enough to raise real concerns.
The real problem here is that allowing medical professionals to pick and choose like you describe based on their personal values will lead to people dying. That's the entire reason for the Hippocratic oath, to provide an unbiased framework of ethics under which physicians practice.
Which Hippocratic oath? Cos the original forbids prescribing death, allowing abortion, or c sections, it also says "". The newer one "" still says "". And the only one that does not is the "" which is the only one with explicit statements of neutrality but doesn't really provide much ethical framework beyond that. And yeah people die every day should I be forced to donate all my money to stop that? U have internet and a phone that decision has killed a countable number of people that you could have prevented.
Hypothetically, say you're straight, have a one night stand with your preferred gender and get AIDS. You feel sick go to a doctor and they refuse to treat you because AIDS is the "gay" disease and since you have AIDS, you must be gay and this Doctor doesn't "agree with that lifestyle." So you ask for one who does, turns out you're in a Catholic hospital and no one "agrees with that lifestyle" here. Sorry, you're fucked and maybe have to drive a few hours for treatment now because of some judgmental assholes. Or you die from AIDS because you live in America, in a red state, where you have no other options.
If its a government hospital they cannot refuse service for that reason and must find someone willing to service you because the state services are bound by anti discrimination laws. An individual should have the right to refuse to service an individual if servicing them is against their religion etc. Its the equivalent of forcing a Muslim chef to make pork because if they refuse it could cause harm to the person who wants to eat pork.
That phrase btw? The one about lifestyles? That's a fucking dog whistle.
The term dog whistle has been so overused to the point it just means something said by people I disagree with. Language is an ever changing thing its simply a set of sounds with an agreed upon meaning. People then attempt to prevent people from conveying particular meaning they do this by restricting the sounds that convey this meaning. So people come up with a new set of sounds that mean they same thing. Hence u have a dig whistle. Winnie the pooh is a dog whistle for fuck Xi Jinping because the CCP banned the original words that means that. A dog whistle is what u get when u censor and silence opinions. A dog whistle is not inherently a bad thing its simply an adaptation to censorship.
-
If u become a soldier do ur job leave ur personal crap at the door or get a new job. U just justified the actions of the Nazis "I'm just following orders".
You do see how your example is very different, right? Right?
If a soldier doesn't want to commit atrocities, they have a choice. Dishonorable discharge? Better than murder.
If a doctor doesn't want to do certain operations, they have a choice. Get a new profession.
There's always choice.
-
your ultimatum was impossible to answer and absurd, so no.
your ultimatum was impossible to answer
Yes that's the point. U cannot hold any 2 beliefs without running into at least one contradiction. Do u compromise on one belief or do u continue living pracricing literal doublethink.
and absurd
All hypotheticals are, that's why they are a hypothetical
, so no.
I guess u have chosen doublethink. I wouldn't want to be on the side of the absolute authoritarian big brother but that's just me I guess.
-
your ultimatum was impossible to answer
Yes that's the point. U cannot hold any 2 beliefs without running into at least one contradiction. Do u compromise on one belief or do u continue living pracricing literal doublethink.
and absurd
All hypotheticals are, that's why they are a hypothetical
, so no.
I guess u have chosen doublethink. I wouldn't want to be on the side of the absolute authoritarian big brother but that's just me I guess.
no no. the impossible part is that he’s already dead. you cannot be presented with your example.
-
You do see how your example is very different, right? Right?
If a soldier doesn't want to commit atrocities, they have a choice. Dishonorable discharge? Better than murder.
If a doctor doesn't want to do certain operations, they have a choice. Get a new profession.
There's always choice.
My argument is that you should have said choice. I simply think you should be allowed to make said choice without retribution. If completely leaving the profession is the only other option then all soldiers will be war criminals and all doctors will be without personal morality.
-
no no. the impossible part is that he’s already dead. you cannot be presented with your example.
That's why its a hypothetical.
One if the most amazing powers of the human brain is the ability to displace ourselves in time and space and imagine what we would do in such a situation.
-
That's why its a hypothetical.
One if the most amazing powers of the human brain is the ability to displace ourselves in time and space and imagine what we would do in such a situation.
well my point and standing is not hypothetical. try again.
