Christians shouldn't be doctors...

[fli]

... or anyone else who has strong moral convictions that could affect the quality of care of patients. And I'm not talking about doctors, but all health care providers on every level of the sect.

I keep thinking to myself, doctors face certain dilemmas where-duh-they're going to face a situation where IT'S NOT ABOUT THEM, IT'S ABOUT THE PATIENT.

And it seems obvious. If you don't like abortions, then why are you choosing an industry where it happens?

Or providing birth control to very young women, the possibility of euthanasia, offering fertility services to the LGBT community, and all sorts of situations where their decision to refuse treatment will affect the health of the patient.

It's bullshit that these same doctors are claiming religious persecution. The fact is that they're pushing their beliefs on other people in a system where they're decision is going to have a detrimental effect lives.

If you don't like these sorts of things, then don't be any sort of health care provider. This is the best decision for the patient, who is, in the very end.... Much more important than your own religious or moral convictions.

[MultiCanimefan]

I'm religious and Amen to all of your points above.

[n64kid]

At 8/18/08 03:38 PM, fli wrote:

And it seems obvious. If you don't like abortions, then why are you choosing an industry where it happens?

Oh so people shouldn't follow their passion to be a doctor just because abortions happen. Surgery goes wrong, so why do people choose to become surgeons? Having "excessive wealth" is a sin, so why do people choose to enter the financial industry? Games will be lost, so why do people choose to become professional athletes? Crime and corruption happens, even within the police, so why do people choose to become cops?

It's bullshit that these same doctors are claiming religious persecution. The fact is that they're pushing their beliefs on other people in a system where they're decision is going to have a detrimental effect lives.

You can always find another qualified doctor who is willing and able to perform operations. Who are you to tell doctors who put 8 years of their lives studying to do what they want to do and tell them to put their own morals and beliefs aside just so you can be happy. You appear to be on the side of "who are they to tell us we're wrong" when you're guilty of the same crime.

If you don't like these sorts of things, then don't be any sort of health care provider. This is the best decision for the patient, who is, in the very end.... Much more important than your own religious or moral convictions.

I'm sure finding a doctor who's just fine with it, especially in California, is not difficult.

[Gunter45]

At 8/18/08 04:02 PM, n64kid wrote: Oh so people shouldn't follow their passion to be a doctor just because abortions happen. Surgery goes wrong, so why do people choose to become surgeons?

Not for lack of effort on the surgeon's part. Surgeons don't make mistakes because of a conflict of interests, it's human error.

Having "excessive wealth" is a sin, so why do people choose to enter the financial industry?

And if that's the way someone thinks, they shouldn't be in the financial industry. If you have an aversion to usury, maybe you shouldn't be a usurer. That's the exact point fli's making, retard.

Games will be lost, so why do people choose to become professional athletes? Crime and corruption happens, even within the police, so why do people choose to become cops?

Again, not from lack of effort. These things have nothing to do with the topic. It's not that people shouldn't be doctors because things happen. It's that they shouldn't be doctors because their beliefs contrast with medical practices. Patients shouldn't suffer simply because their doctor doesn't want to perform a procedure for ideological reasons.

You can always find another qualified doctor who is willing and able to perform operations. Who are you to tell doctors who put 8 years of their lives studying to do what they want to do and tell them to put their own morals and beliefs aside just so you can be happy. You appear to be on the side of "who are they to tell us we're wrong" when you're guilty of the same crime.

It makes sense when those beliefs interfere with them doing their jobs.

Here's an example for you: The Science Teachers Association of Texas is one of my clients and one of their positions they take is the support of teaching evolution in the classroom. If I had a strong moral disagreement with evolution, then I really shouldn't work for them, should I? It means I won't do a good job working for them and I would be upset with what they were doing. Everyone loses.

If someone has a problem performing medical procedures, such as abortions, then they shouldn't put themselves in a position where they will be reasonably asked to do so. Just because someone might be available to do the job instead of you is no excuse. If someone else is going to do the job without bitching, then what the hell good are you, other than a drain of hospital funding?

Besides, what about if the hospital is understaffed and somebody needs an emergency abortion done to save their life? If you're the only doctor available and you let someone die because you have a problem with performing the necessary surgery, then someone else should have been hired instead of you. There isn't always someone else. Either you do the job you signed on for, or you find another profession, it's that simple.

[Diederick]

No intelligent person should be Christian, or in any other kind of sect. I understand why especially religion is appealing for the less intelligent: it makes this world a whole lot simpler having small answers to big questions. But what on earth is a doctor, whom I would presume is to be considered as more than averagely intelligent, doing with this sectarianism?

If a doctor refuses to help a person while he is completely able to do so (under normal circumstances: I can imagine he'd be pissed to help some drunk person knocking at his door at 4:00AM asking for an aspirin), shouldn't he be discharged? Doctors should be Doctor first, Christian second - if they, for some odd reason, want to be Christian.

[fli]

At 8/18/08 04:02 PM, n64kid wrote: Oh so people shouldn't follow their passion to be a doctor just because abortions happen. Surgery goes wrong, so why do people choose to become surgeons? Having "excessive wealth" is a sin, so why do people choose to enter the financial industry? Games will be lost, so why do people choose to become professional athletes? Crime and corruption happens, even within the police, so why do people choose to become cops?

But do these people follow push a prescription to living life on others? What is more, whatever happens to them... ONLY happens to them. But when you're a doctor, you're decisions directly responsible for another person's life or capacity for living. What if you had a brain hemorrhage? Do you really want a doctor, who so happens to be a firm-believing Jehovah Witness, say to you, "I'm sorry, I don't believe in blood transfusions." The problem becomes exacerbated when the medical problem is time sensitive, and a doctor's refusal could ultimately mean being much deeper in crap. If you don't believe in abortions, contraceptives, euthanasia, or don't to treat people who you personally see immoral, then don't be a doctor.

You can always find another qualified doctor who is willing and able to perform operations. Who are you to tell doctors who put 8 years of their lives studying to do what they want to do and tell them to put their own morals and beliefs aside just so you can be happy. You appear to be on the side of "who are they to tell us we're wrong" when you're guilty of the same crime.

This isn't even about happiness. This is about HEALTH, and if you've studied 8 years to be a doctor so you can refuse HEALTH CARE to a person in need... then, why are you in that profession? It seems to me that somebody who is so interested in advocating their beliefs would be happier in the clergy.

I'm sure finding a doctor who's just fine with it, especially in California, is not difficult.

You would be suprised of the frequency where a doctor in California refused to provide treatment is reported in the news...

[Pontificate]

At 8/18/08 04:02 PM, n64kid wrote: Oh so people shouldn't follow their passion to be a doctor just because abortions happen. Surgery goes wrong, so why do people choose to become surgeons? Having "excessive wealth" is a sin, so why do people choose to enter the financial industry? Games will be lost, so why do people choose to become professional athletes? Crime and corruption happens, even within the police, so why do people choose to become cops?

You're analogies, while weak in the first place, are missing the point: it is not 'something you view as bad is involved in the industry so you shouldn't do it' it is 'there is an issue you feel so strongly about that you are willing to let it interfere with your work to the detriment of others so don't work in the field that forces you to deal with this issue regularly'. If one has strong, negative moral feelings regarding an issue they should not work in an area that requires them to deal with the issue on a regular basis. It is unprofessional and negatively impacts people's lives.

You can always find another qualified doctor who is willing and able to perform operations. Who are you to tell doctors who put 8 years of their lives studying to do what they want to do and tell them to put their own morals and beliefs aside just so you can be happy. You appear to be on the side of "who are they to tell us we're wrong" when you're guilty of the same crime.

That is not his stance at all as I've already demonstrated. It is not a doctor's perogative to choose whom they treat or what for; if one disagrees with birth control that IS their perogative but the moment that is allowed to interfere with one's work (especially work which directly impacts people's lives) one is in the wrong field.

I'm sure finding a doctor who's just fine with it, especially in California, is not difficult.

Why should the patient have to look around when it is the responsibility of any doctor to put their morals behind their proffesional duty?

Frankly if one is not prepared to act impartially in an area where one help members of all creeds, races and beliefs and in all manner of situations then one is not prepared to accept the responsibility of being a physician.

[AapoJoki]

Imagine if there was a Jehova's Witness doctor who refused to perform blood transfusion or to even take part in operations where blood transfusions take place. All of you would be screaming to get his ass fired.

The law should be the same for everyone. If a Christian doctor refuses to perform an operation that patient is legally entitled to, then he should no longer be a doctor.

[poxpower]

I don't understand why a Christian would want to be a doctor.

The entire point of being Christian is to believe that God made the world perfect. If you try to save people then you're basically telling God that he's doing a shitty job at deciding when people's time has come.

[dySWN]

At 8/18/08 04:42 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Imagine if there was a Jehova's Witness doctor who refused to perform blood transfusion or to even take part in operations where blood transfusions take place. All of you would be screaming to get his ass fired.

The law should be the same for everyone. If a Christian doctor refuses to perform an operation that patient is legally entitled to, then he should no longer be a doctor.

This is why doctors give referrals and/or why hospitals contain more than one doctor - if one can't or won't do something for a patient, then another one on staff probably can. Forcing the issue when others can provide the same treatment is an awful waste.

[stafffighter]

At 8/18/08 04:56 PM, poxpower wrote: I don't understand why a Christian would want to be a doctor.

The entire point of being Christian is to believe that God made the world perfect. If you try to save people then you're basically telling God that he's doing a shitty job at deciding when people's time has come.

Works in mysterious ways, helps those who help themselves, that kind of thing. Basically the understanding is that he put us here to act as he would, not to just sit on our hands waiting for him. Thism does make a lot of Christian social policies incongruent but half the fun of organized religion is contradicting yourslef.
I'm gonna go watch one of the episodes where House heals a Christian and come back with more material.

[Prinzy2]

Well if I have a heart attack, I don't really give a shit what my doctor practices, as long as he's trying his hardest to save my life. I don't think there are a lot of religions that tell a doctor not to open me up and do a bypass. Sure some religions like JWs say you can't be given someone else's blood, but the hospital isn't going to give you a doctor who's a JW if you need blood. I know plenty of doctors who are doctors and they are fine. I even know a pastors wife who works at the pregnancy center and they hand out condoms to teens.

Not all religious people force their religion on you.

[n64kid]

At 8/18/08 04:29 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

Not for lack of effort on the surgeon's part. Surgeons don't make mistakes because of a conflict of interests, it's human error.

The point is wrongful surgury and errors exist, but that shouldn't discourage people from pursuing a career in surgery. It's analogous to Fli saying abortions exist, so people opposed shouldn't become doctors. He makes it out like abortions represent 100% of what doctors go through.

Having "excessive wealth" is a sin, so why do people choose to enter the financial industry?

And if that's the way someone thinks, they shouldn't be in the financial industry. If you have an aversion to usury, maybe you shouldn't be a usurer. That's the exact point fli's making, retard.

I won't call you a retard for missing -my- point, although perhaps I should have elaborated that there are more to professional sectors and industries than just one thing that you can be opposed to. Entering the financial sector doesn't mean you will become rich nor is money the only drive in that industry. That was my point.

Games will be lost, so why do people choose to become professional athletes? Crime and corruption happens, even within the police, so why do people choose to become cops?

Again, not from lack of effort. These things have nothing to do with the topic. It's not that people shouldn't be doctors because things happen. It's that they shouldn't be doctors because their beliefs contrast with medical practices. Patients shouldn't suffer simply because their doctor doesn't want to perform a procedure for ideological reasons.

You can give it all you got, and still lose, so why try in the first place and be an athlete especially if you can let your fans down too? Also, Sandy Koufax didn't play on Yom Kippur because it went against his beliefs. Should Sandy have never pitched because of the chance he would have to play during a religious holiday? As you said, should he not have become a baseball player just because his beliefs contrast with baseball practices of playing games in September/October? Or should he be free to play games that he can, much like having doctors practicing what they want to do, and for the times that it conflicts with their beliefs, they tell people to go elsewhere. Millions of innocent fans are let down so don't say that in either a doctor or players case is purely selfish.

It makes sense when those beliefs interfere with them doing their jobs.

Read above.

Here's an example for you: The Science Teachers Association of Texas is one of my clients and one of their positions they take is the support of teaching evolution in the classroom. If I had a strong moral disagreement with evolution, then I really shouldn't work for them, should I? It means I won't do a good job working for them and I would be upset with what they were doing. Everyone loses.

So you won't do business with someone because you have a disagreement in just one aspect? What kind of an age are you living in?

If someone has a problem performing medical procedures, such as abortions, then they shouldn't put themselves in a position where they will be reasonably asked to do so. Just because someone might be available to do the job instead of you is no excuse. If someone else is going to do the job without bitching, then what the hell good are you, other than a drain of hospital funding?

The same thing. Why should doctors be denied to cure patients and do what they spent so much time, studying, and effort into doing just because of the possibility of being asked to perform an abortion, which to me doesn't seem like it represents any significant percentage of duties a doctor performs on an annual basis.

Besides, what about if the hospital is understaffed and somebody needs an emergency abortion done to save their life? If you're the only doctor available and you let someone die because you have a problem with performing the necessary surgery, then someone else should have been hired instead of you. There isn't always someone else. Either you do the job you signed on for, or you find another profession, it's that simple.

So as you've stated, there could be a shortage of doctors, and if religious people shouldn't be doctors, the doctor/patient ratio would be a catastrophe. But in regards to what you brought up:

1) An emergency abortion that's life threatening if untreated seems unlikely, and wouldn't be that time sensitive, especially in the first trimester.

2) Non-religious doctors do in fact view abortion as murder and most would never perform one after 15 weeks due to elevated risk of the mother and destroying something with a beating heart.

3) If it was certain that it would bring great and immediate harm to the mother, then I'm certain even the most stubborn of doctors would perform an abortion.

At 8/18/08 04:31 PM, fli wrote:

But do these people follow push a prescription to living life on others?

If you can't respect their opinion, go elsewhere.Why should people have to think like you if they want to be doctors? You're not the one performing the abortion, and killing a baby. Know your doctor ahead of time, and know a backup. It's just that simple.

What is more, whatever happens to them... ONLY happens to them. But when you're a doctor, you're decisions directly responsible for another person's life or capacity for living. What if you had a brain hemorrhage? Do you really want a doctor, who so happens to be a firm-believing Jehovah Witness, say to you, "I'm sorry, I don't believe in blood transfusions."

Find me a case where that has happened, and all I can tell you is KNOW YOUR DOCTOR like everyone else in the world does. I know mine, I have someone else if he is out of town or is unable/unwilling to perform. Plan ahead.

The problem becomes exacerbated when the medical problem is time sensitive, and a doctor's refusal could ultimately mean being much deeper in crap. If you don't believe in abortions, contraceptives, euthanasia, or don't to treat people who you personally see immoral, then don't be a doctor.

I'm curious, how does refusal of euthanasia ultimately mean being in much deeper crap. Also how many times are people refused medical attention when their condition is actually urgent? And I'm bringing this up again, why should someone who pursues a career where the majority of the time they do what they don't object to give it up just because of the minority of time they might be asked and turn down something they are opposed to?

This isn't even about happiness. This is about HEALTH, and if you've studied 8 years to be a doctor so you can refuse HEALTH CARE to a person in need... then, why are you in that profession? It seems to me that somebody who is so interested in advocating their beliefs would be happier in the clergy.

Well we clearly don't see eye to eye on this. You keep making it sound like doctors don't think about this, and you make it seem that refusing health care means that there are no alternatives like finding another doctor. You also ignore that religous doctors, even if they turn patients down, save lives nonetheless. Abortions don't represent 100% of medical attention, and I've failed to ever find a case where a doctor refused care to someone in a critical situation whos life depended on an abortion.

You would be suprised of the frequency where a doctor in California refused to provide treatment is reported in the news...

Mercury News?

[n64kid]

At 8/18/08 04:35 PM, Pontificate wrote:

If one has strong, negative moral feelings regarding an issue they should not work in an area that requires them to deal with the issue on a regular basis. It is unprofessional and negatively impacts people's lives.

Doctors deal with abortions on a regular basis? Most abortions happen in Abortion Clinics, not medical hospitals or urgent care. You confuse doctors who regularly perform abortions with doctors who don't, are uncomfortable with them, and turn them down because of it.

That is not his stance at all as I've already demonstrated. It is not a doctor's perogative to choose whom they treat or what for; if one disagrees with birth control that IS their perogative but the moment that is allowed to interfere with one's work (especially work which directly impacts people's lives) one is in the wrong field.

There's a difference that you still fail to realize and that's abortions because it's unwanted versus abortions because it's life threatening. Who are you to tell a doctor to not practice medicine just because they view abortion as wrong. We need doctors in all medical fields, and to tell certain ones not to practice their fields just because they are asked to perform an abortion and deny it is purely wrong.

Why should the patient have to look around when it is the responsibility of any doctor to put their morals behind their proffesional duty?

Why do you feel it's the doctors responsibility to put their own morals and beliefs behind when the condition isn't life threatening? Why don't you go to an abortion clinic in the first place?

Frankly if one is not prepared to act impartially in an area where one help members of all creeds, races and beliefs and in all manner of situations then one is not prepared to accept the responsibility of being a physician.

Specifically because abortion exists, people against them shouldn't become physicians because they might be asked to perform an abortion?

Your arguments are stupid.

[ReciprocalAnalogy]

So, it's about the patient, not the doctor. And, moral values shouldn't get in the way of treating a patient. Both of these are covered by the hippocratic oath. In the case of euthenasia, it's kind of against the law.

So let's cut the hate speech eh? Simply put, they're not doing their job.

[Brick-top]

76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

lol

[SadisticMonkey]

At 8/18/08 05:29 PM, n64kid wrote: The point is wrongful surgury and errors exist, but that shouldn't discourage people from pursuing a career in surgery. It's analogous to Fli saying abortions exist, so people opposed shouldn't become doctors.

No no no no. Can you not read?

The surgeries don't get fucked up because of religious/moral convictions.

It would only be analogous if it were like "I think cutting people is morally wrong so I refuse to complete thi surgery".

Games will be lost, so why do people choose to become professional athletes? Crime and corruption happens, even within the police, so why do people choose to become cops?

Okay you're a moron.

Athletes don't lose because winning conflicts with their religious beliefs, criminals don't go uncaught because the police feel it's morally wrong to catch them.

[Hat3Lov3]

At 8/18/08 04:42 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Imagine if there was a Jehova's Witness doctor who refused to perform blood transfusion or to even take part in operations where blood transfusions take place. All of you would be screaming to get his ass fired.

The law should be the same for everyone. If a Christian doctor refuses to perform an operation that patient is legally entitled to, then he should no longer be a doctor.

Thats something I agree entirelly on. I believe Christian Doctors, regardless of their religion should perform whatever medical performance needed to be done, seriously whats more sinful refusing to help patients because he/she might have a life threatening condition or whatever reason, or doing what your sworn to do regardless of whom the person might be and safe a life?.

[n64kid]

At 8/18/08 06:11 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 8/18/08 05:29 PM, n64kid wrote: The point is wrongful surgury and errors exist, but that shouldn't discourage people from pursuing a career in surgery. It's analogous to Fli saying abortions exist, so people opposed shouldn't become doctors.

No no no no. Can you not read?

I can read, can you?

Fli: If you don't like abortions, then why are you choosing an industry where it happens?

The surgeries don't get fucked up because of religious/moral convictions.

"Not liking abortions" being the driving force, which is what this thread is basically saying, of telling people not to be doctors, is what this thread is about. Read it again.

It would only be analogous if it were like "I think cutting people is morally wrong so I refuse to complete thi surgery".

My analogies fit what he said.

Fli: If you don't like abortions, then why are you choosing an industry where it happens?

Games will be lost, so why do people choose to become professional athletes? Crime and corruption happens, even within the police, so why do people choose to become cops?

Okay you're a moron.

I understand you hate religion, and may I add I am pro choice and an atheist as well, but just as women choose whether to have their babies killed or not, doctors should choose whether to perform the operation.

Athletes don't lose because winning conflicts with their religious beliefs, criminals don't go uncaught because the police feel it's morally wrong to catch them.

Did you read the thread or are you just hand picking what I wrote to criticize? I expected better from you. Let's try this again.....

Saying "If you don't like abortions, then why are you choosing an industry where it happens?" is just like saying "Why should Sandy Koufax be a baseball player if certain games coincide with Jewish holidays." Rather than denying people from doing what they love just because they don't like everything that's in their industry, let them do what they want, and don't do what they don't want. You people keep running around making it seem like denying an abortion is denying someone's well being when emergency abortions because the mother is at risk is rare, and I've never heard of a case where that situation arises and gets turned down. Even by doctors morally opposed to abortions.

[fli]

At 8/18/08 05:29 PM, n64kid wrote: The point is wrongful surgury and errors exist, but that shouldn't discourage people from pursuing a career in surgery. It's analogous to Fli saying abortions exist, so people opposed shouldn't become doctors. He makes it out like abortions represent 100% of what doctors go through.

It is not analogus because if you get hurt as a player, made a mistake during surgery, or whatever... it's human error. (As Gunter said.)

These are consequences brought upon people for different circumstances.

If you can't respect their opinion, go elsewhere.Why should people have to think like you if they want to be doctors? You're not the one performing the abortion, and killing a baby. Know your doctor ahead of time, and know a backup. It's just that simple.

In matters of health versus opinion...
Health is above anything else.

Mercury News?

What about Mercury News?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

So, basically, anyone who has any sort of set of opinions, or other human characteristics, should be barred from helping people.

So, no Theists, Liberals, Republicans, spiritualists, people with any sort of scientific or medical opinion, people with specific economic views, or people with any sort of racial identity that contains native beliefs; A.K.A all of them.

Great plan.

[n64kid]

At 8/18/08 06:43 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: So, basically, anyone who has any sort of set of opinions, or other human characteristics, should be barred from helping people.

So, no Theists, Liberals, Republicans, spiritualists, people with any sort of scientific or medical opinion, people with specific economic views, or people with any sort of racial identity that contains native beliefs; A.K.A all of them.

Great plan.

Thank you cuppa. Someone who agrees that certain people have the right to help others, but not if it means giving an abortion. Yet can continue providing care in other aspects.

[n64kid]

At 8/18/08 06:43 PM, fli wrote:

It is not analogus because if you get hurt as a player, made a mistake during surgery, or whatever... it's human error. (As Gunter said.)

You simply said "If you don't like abortions, then why are you choosing an industry where it happens?" without much elaboration. So people not becoming surgeons because people die under surgury even when no mistakes have taken place happens would fit. And what about the Sandy Koufax one? But screw the analogies for now.

In matters of health versus opinion...
Health is above anything else.

True, but since when has abortion been an issue of health? How come I've never heard of a doctor deny attention in a situation where an abortion had to take place in order to save the mother's life? Can you give me examples where life was at risk when a doctor turned down a patient?

[AapoJoki]

At 8/18/08 06:43 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: So, basically, anyone who has any sort of set of opinions, or other human characteristics, should be barred from helping people.

Not if they can put their personal convictions on morality aside and concentrate on serving their customers' needs, as required by their occupation and the law.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/18/08 07:05 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

Not if they can put their personal convictions on morality aside and concentrate on serving their customers' needs, as required by their occupation and the law.

The law say's no such thing, or anything anywhere close to anything like that. Do a little research on what "freedom" means. Doctors have the right to refuse to perform an abortion if they don't want to perform an abortion. This is not illegal, it's a matter best left up to the hospital. If it's a hospital that requires it's doctors to perform abortion (which makes no sense, because now a day's everyone goes to an abortion clinics), then the manager can decide whether or not to retain that staff member.

And sorry if this comes out rude, but please do not presume to tell people what should and shouldn't be "required by their occupation". The fact that the people running the hospitals that hire these types of ethical, 'anti-abortion' type doctors, are paid large sums of money for their services and you aren't, means that they, most likely, are inherently better then you at deciding who should and shouldn't be fired.

[MultiCanimefan]

Why shouldn't Christians be doctors? Why can't anyone be a doctor as long as they recieve the proper medical training and degree from accredited (keyword: accredited) institutions and their instructors?

If anyone who wishes to become a doctor isn't willing to obey the Declaration of Geneva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio n_of_Geneva), especially the 8th bullet concerning religion, then they shouldn't become a doctor.

[n64kid]

At 8/18/08 07:05 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 8/18/08 06:43 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: So, basically, anyone who has any sort of set of opinions, or other human characteristics, should be barred from helping people.

Not if they can put their personal convictions on morality aside and concentrate on serving their customers' needs, as required by their occupation and the law.

As backwards as you make Finland out to be, I doubt there is a law that says that. However, in America, there is a federal law that allows pro-life doctors to practice medicine while refusing to perform abortions which is perfectly ok and reasonable. Doctors being forced to conform or leave the profession is the backwards arm of society trying to hit itself without realizing the consequences.

I would like to quote the opening of the Hippocratic oath:

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment this covenant"

To the best of my ability AND judgment. If a doctor judges an abortion as unnecessary as in most cases it is not in conflict with a woman's health, then he or she should not be forced to perform one.

A gynecologist who has a passion to prevent all cervical/ovarian cancer and stuff of that nature should not be forced to perform abortions against their will. Stating otherwise would be backwards.

[fli]

At 8/18/08 07:20 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Why shouldn't Christians be doctors?

It's not that they SHOULDN'T--
but they ought to keep it within their own personal lives and not impose it on others. And if they're so bothere by it, then they must question if that line of work is something they truly want to do.

[thedo12]

At 8/18/08 04:56 PM, poxpower wrote: I don't understand why a Christian would want to be a doctor.

The entire point of being Christian is to believe that God made the world perfect. If you try to save people then you're basically telling God that he's doing a shitty job at deciding when people's time has come.

well if thr bible was actualy true we wouldnt need a god, we could just pray for people to be healthy.

[Pontificate]

At 8/18/08 05:39 PM, n64kid wrote: Alot of nonsense about abortion.

You know; I've often seen many cases of reductio adsurdum whilst viewing these forums but never one where the point-cum-absurdity never existed in the first place.

Indeed; not becoming a doctor because of abortions would be ridiculous. Here's a solution: simply don't work in an abortion clinic. That's not the arguement at hand, however. More along the lines of GP's refusing to prescribe the pill or treating a patient based on the nature of the disease (that is, STI's).

So when interpreted correctly my arguements aren't stupid; I'd hazard a guess though that either you're a little dim for so wild a miscomprehension to occur or dishonest enough to invent a point against which you can argue.