Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room'


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room' Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 5:50:22 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Of course they are entitled to their views
bloody hell where has that been denied
what is wrong is when they bring these  "beliefs"  as a reason to deny someone else care.
to exercise that belief, should not interfere with someone elses health.

You wouldnt expect a sausage factory to stop using pork because a Jew or Muslim employee wanted to stop handling pork.





I am going to need some example from Boston Emergency rooms where rape victims were turned away because every doctor and nurse was pro life and no one would administer emergency medications.



(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 5:57:06 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		kittin...

who is this happening too?

Here is the problem... other doctors and nurses and mindless hospital admistrators that have no moral or ethical problems with aborton and contraceptives get pissed off because Dr. Soandso and Nurse Whatername are not required too and they are.


(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 5:59:50 PM   
maybemaybenot


Posts: 2817
Joined: 9/22/2005
Status: offline 		OK... I have waited for 5 pages ....... to those of you bashing Brown and nurses for trying to add the conscientous objection clause: The clause that was defeated and the bill Scott Brown voted for despite the clause not being in it... here is my questions for you:

Have any of you heard of the Stupak Ammedndment ? Do you know what it contains ?

The Stupak Ammendment is one of those late night, behind closed door deals the Democrats cut to try and push this healthcare bill thru. You know the one you are all screaming we can't live without. It just sooooo happens to contain a conscientous objection clause. A clause stronger than the one Brown wanted to push thru. Coakley supports this healthcare bill that has tougher language than the one she is ripping Brown apart for trying to get.

Martha Coakley and her supporters show their ignorance every time they open their mouth about Brown wanting to deny rape victims care... seems Obama and the Dems that penned this bill and cut back door deals are perfectly fine with it. How come Martha isn't ? How come you aren't opposed to this federal healthcare plan, when it contains the very thing you have spent 5 pages criticizing ?

                             mbmbn


_____________________________

Tolerance of evil is suicide.- NYC Firefighter

When tolerance is not reciprocated, tolerance becomes surrender.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:00:07 PM   
kiwisub12


Posts: 4742
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline 		Seems to me that a lot of you are missing the point. I worked in a ER for 10 years. I worked with a nurse who couldn't pass an NG tube without gagging and vomiting. She didn't have to do it - i did it for her. Should she be assigned to a paperwork job because just about anywhere she would work she would be required to pass NG tubes at one time or another?

I object to helping with abortions. The issue has never come up in 30 years of nursing - in the ER and in surgery - but if it did, someone i worked with who doesn't have the moral scruples i do would help with it.

And in doing so, i am not cramming my belief down anyones throat, or influencing someone elses ethics. I am doing what is best for me and the patient. Not my patient, so I am not abandoning the patient, but A patient. And the person would be taken care of with little fuss.

In any job there are distastful things or things that go against your own personal beliefs. It is your right as an individual to find a way to do your job in such a way as to maintain your integrity. Wheither it is passing NG tubes or not participating in an act that goes against your own spiritual belief, there is always a way of accomodating everyone. There is nothing wrong with being flexible.


(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:00:07 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		BTW...

Still, nothing about telling a non smoking cocktail waitress to go find a waitress job at a restaurant where there is no smoking.

Oh no... we cannot have that.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:02:50 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
They have a right to work where they want. It's the politically correct thing to do..


Of course they do, no one has questioned that. An American has the right to believe and belong to whatever religion they desire. We've been having a debate about whether or not employers should loose the right to fire an employee for not doing their job.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:07:32 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Lets answer FatDoms question. OK I will. A cocktail waitress could not get fired if she complained about breathing smoke. Ms, Coakley seems to think that is ok..

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:09:35 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
They have a right to work where they want. It's the politically correct thing to do..


Of course they do, no one has questioned that. An American has the right to believe and belong to whatever religion they desire. We've been having a debate about whether or not employers should loose the right to fire an employee for not doing their job.


Especially those said employeer would force another to take a life, when they took an oath not too.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:15:30 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		Sure enough, kiwi. As long as your personal beliefs don't hinder my access to the healthcare I demand/need/am entitled to/is recommended to me, all is for the best. What is objectionable is when a patient is the victim of this: see Cassandra's post above.

_____________________________



(in reply to kiwisub12)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:18:14 PM   
yummee


Posts: 111
Joined: 5/31/2009
Status: offline 		~FR~

I seem to recall a couple of years ago an area that was having an issue with Somali Muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport passengers with pets, carrying alcohol and, in some cases, having obviously consumed alcohol.  IIRC, over half the taxi drivers in that region were Somali Muslims, so it caused quite an issue, especially at the airport, with passengers being refused services over and over and over again.  In the end, they were forced to take those passengers, even though it went against their religious convictions, or face fines and/or termination.

On the one hand, I don't think medical professionals opting out of performing some services is causing some kind of crisis.  There seems to be others on hand who will perform that service, and I'm assuming ambulances don't take rape victims to Catholic hospitals.  On the other hand, inconsistency bothers me.  If OK for some people to opt out of part of their job requirement due to religious (or other) convictions, why is it not OK for others?


(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:25:08 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		So you must think that a Doctor who takes a hippocratic oath should be required to perform an abortion ??

(in reply to yummee)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:48:22 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		Personally I'm an Independent, though I'm far closer to a New Hampshire Republican than a Massachusetts Democrat. I think it's ridiculous that people end up having to stand in the street in the middle of a NH winter to have a cigarette. I also think it's ridiculous for the government to prohibit an employer from firing an employee for not doing their job.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:53:25 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Even a Doctor ??

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 6:59:36 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

Seems to me that a lot of you are missing the point. I worked in a ER for 10 years. I worked with a nurse who couldn't pass an NG tube without gagging and vomiting. She didn't have to do it - i did it for her. Should she be assigned to a paperwork job because just about anywhere she would work she would be required to pass NG tubes at one time or another?

I object to helping with abortions. The issue has never come up in 30 years of nursing - in the ER and in surgery - but if it did, someone i worked with who doesn't have the moral scruples i do would help with it.

And in doing so, i am not cramming my belief down anyones throat, or influencing someone elses ethics. I am doing what is best for me and the patient. Not my patient, so I am not abandoning the patient, but A patient. And the person would be taken care of with little fuss.

In any job there are distastful things or things that go against your own personal beliefs. It is your right as an individual to find a way to do your job in such a way as to maintain your integrity. Wheither it is passing NG tubes or not participating in an act that goes against your own spiritual belief, there is always a way of accomodating everyone. There is nothing wrong with being flexible.


A couple of people have brought up this argument. My response is that's great, if it all works out just fine then the nurses don't need new laws. But if there are cases where it doesn't work out, I'm strongly opposed to preventing hospitals from fixing the problem.

(in reply to kiwisub12)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 7:02:04 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		thing is they dont NEED to be fired...dont they have responsibility to make allowances for their own religious restrictions and not realise that the earth doesnt revolve around what their religious beliefs are when they are at work.



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 7:05:29 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Then fixing the problem for you would be to fire a Doctor who refused to do an abortion.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 7:10:13 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		This whole thread is about Martha Coakleys beliefs. She thinks they should go against their beliefs or not work there. That is what is wrong. That is one of the reasons she will lose the election tomorrow.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 7:13:52 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: yummee

~FR~

I seem to recall a couple of years ago an area that was having an issue with Somali Muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport passengers with pets, carrying alcohol and, in some cases, having obviously consumed alcohol.  IIRC, over half the taxi drivers in that region were Somali Muslims, so it caused quite an issue, especially at the airport, with passengers being refused services over and over and over again.  In the end, they were forced to take those passengers, even though it went against their religious convictions, or face fines and/or termination.


That was here in the Twin Cities. And yes, it was quite a problem. They would often abandon their passengers, just toss them out of their cabs and leave them wherever they happened to be. Not just people who were drinking, but blind old ladies with service dogs, for god's sake. I was just disgusted with how many local politicians bent over backwards trying to find ways to "accommodate" their beliefs. The whole thing was absurd. Your job is to drive anyone who gets in your cab anywhere they want to go, period. Don't want to do that, find another job, pure and simple.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to yummee)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 7:19:58 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		So doctors should just find other jobs ?

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn'... - 1/18/2010 7:24:45 PM   
yummee


Posts: 111
Joined: 5/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

So you must think that a Doctor who takes a hippocratic oath should be required to perform an abortion ??


I'm not sure why you would have that impression.  I said, "On the one hand, I don't think medical professionals opting out of performing some services is causing some kind of crisis.  There seems to be others on hand who will perform that service, and I'm assuming ambulances don't take rape victims to Catholic hospitals."

My only issue is inconsistency.  What makes it ok for some people in some professions to opt out of part of their job and not ok for other people in other professions to opt out of part of their job requirements? 

I have no problem with Catholic or private hospitals choosing not to perform some services.  When they set up their private business, they choose what services they are willing to provide and what services they are unwilling to provide.  I have no problem with health care workers choosing not to participate in some services their company provides, as long as they are up front about it.  Assuming there is more than one person filling that particular role on that shift, the company can be sure the other(s) in that position are willing to participate in providing that service.  I see no problem there.

I would have a problem if it were a one-doctor (or one-nurse) public clinic and patients were refused services that clinic actually does provide because the one-doctor (or one-nurse) on staff that shift is unwilling to assist in that service.  For me, that is the line where one's personal morality crosses into another's right to care.  Like I said above though, I haven't noticed any uproar or crisis regarding that.  It seems that (in general) people who choose to work for organizations who provide services they are not willing to assist in providing don't often put themselves in the position of being the only one on staff, thus being required to perform that service or out-and-out deny that patient/consumer/client a service their organization does provide.  I'm sure it happens on occasion (as someone posted above), but I suspect it is uncommon.  IMO, that doctor should have been up front with his organization (or his organization should have taken into account that doctor's position) so an alternate on-call doctor would have been called for that patient. 

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room' Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094