Evangelical extremist?

[Spud]

So if I want, as a doctor, to refuse to treat Jews I should be allowed to do so?

I think a doctor can withhold a treatment from a patient if in his opinion it is unnecessary?

[Nearly Sane]

I think a doctor can withhold a treatment from a patient if in his opinion it is unnecessary?

Not an answer to the question. Can I refuse to treat a Jewish person as a doctor because it's against my conscience?

[Brownie]

Why would any doctor refuse to treat someone on grounds of race, religion or cultural background?   I can't see that situation arising, I've no doubt there have been and probably still are docs with personal prejudices but they wouldn't get very far.  If someone is in need of medical care, it has to be given regardless of how the medics may feel about them personally.

Doctors, however, do vary in their opinions about treatment, disagreeing amongst themselves about what is appropriate, calling on colleagues for further input;  that's very common and not a bad thing.

Quote from: Spud on December 18, 2016, 08:52:21 PM
I think the overall majority of people worldwide would believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Has there been a recent worldwide survey, Spud?  I know there have been surveys in this country.

I think the overall majority of marriages worldwide will be between a man and a woman because the majority of people are heterosexual. 

The legalisation of SSM is, imo, extremely fair but you don't have to feel threatened, it's not going to increase the proportion of gay people. 

Let's face it, if you or I got divorced we aren't going to say, "Ooh, next time I'll look for a (same sex person)", are we? (Well, I'm not, don't know about you but that's your business so I won't pry.)

Life will go on much the same for the majority of us;  a previously persecuted minority will have some long overdue security and a chance of happiness.

[Spud]

Not an answer to the question. Can I refuse to treat a Jewish person as a doctor because it's against my conscience?

Assuming you mean because this person is of Jewish ethnicity and not because he practices Judaism, then no.

[Gordon]

Assuming you mean because this person is of Jewish ethnicity and not because he practices Judaism, then no.

....and if he was of Jewish ethnicity and was a practising Jew?

[Spud]

If you mean because he practices Judaism, then no also. Judaism, however, would require someone to abstain from homosexual activity and so it might not be appropriate to compare the doctor who can't agree with Judaism, with the registrar or baker who is being asked to endorse homosexual activity.

[Hope]

Then they should get another job if their beliefs are that strong.

But what if a person's skill-set is in a field where government, or society require them to behave in ways that run counter to their beliefs?  For instance, a doctor being required to perfom abortions against his own principles, or a midwife being required to carry out FGM?

[Gordon]

If you mean because he practices Judaism, then no also. Judaism, however, would require someone to abstain from homosexual activity and so it might not be appropriate to compare the doctor who can't agree with Judaism, with the registrar or baker who is being asked to endorse homosexual activity.

Spud

You are tying yourself in knots trying to rationalise what is irrational: homophobia.

I think you'll find that medics here in the UK would find themselves being referred to the GMC on charges of unethical conduct were they to decline to treat (when they had the capacity to treat) solely on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the person seeking treatment - I've certainly never encountered a single instance over along NHS career and I'm surprised that you think your scenario is likely - seems to me that you are bad-mouthing the medical profession.

Coming, as they do, just after the death of Rabbi Lionel Blue, your comments are hollow and would be offensive if they weren't so obviously naive. 

[Gordon]

But what if a person's skill-set is in a field where government, or society require them to behave in ways that run counter to their beliefs?  For instance, a doctor being required to perfom abortions against his own principles, or a midwife being required to carry out FGM?

In the former case there are conscience clauses that apply within operational policies regarding abortion (in Scotland anyway - don't know about elsewhere in the UK since the NHS here is fully devolved). In the latter case the midwife would be committing a criminal act - but then they aren't required to carry out FGM anyway: surprised you even thought this was the case.

[Brownie]

But what if a person's skill-set is in a field where government, or society require them to behave in ways that run counter to their beliefs?  For instance, a doctor being required to perfom abortions against his own principles, or a midwife being required to carry out FGM?

No medic will be required by law to carry out those procedures, Hope.  Let's face it, they wouldn't work in that field if they were against abortion, they'd specialise in something different like ENT or Endocrinology.

What could and does happen, rarely nowadays, is doctors and nurses treating someone, on a ward or in A&E, who has complications, eg haemorrhage or infection, after a termination - and that they would do caringly, making no judgement.  I know that for a fact.

[Nearly Sane]

Assuming you mean because this person is of Jewish ethnicity and not because he practices Judaism, then no.

so it would be OK to refuse to that someone because they were a practicing Jewish person?

[Nearly Sane]

If you mean because he practices Judaism, then no also. Judaism, however, would require someone to abstain from homosexual activity and so it might not be appropriate to compare the doctor who can't agree with Judaism, with the registrar or baker who is being asked to endorse homosexual activity.

why not? If it's against their conscience which was your position?  You are now taking the position that the conscience clause only applies if it agrees with YOUR beliefs.

[Spud]

Spud

You are tying yourself in knots trying to rationalise what is irrational: homophobia.

I think you'll find that medics here in the UK would find themselves being referred to the GMC on charges of unethical conduct were they to decline to treat (when they had the capacity to treat) solely on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the person seeking treatment - I've certainly never encountered a single instance over along NHS career and I'm surprised that you think your scenario is likely - seems to me that you are bad-mouthing the medical profession.

Coming, as they do, just after the death of Rabbi Lionel Blue, your comments are hollow and would be offensive if they weren't so obviously naive.

Just to be clear, I have not said anywhere that I think a medic should decline to treat a patient on the grounds of sexual orientation. Nor that I would decline to provide other types of service to someone on such grounds.

You're confusing same sex attraction, an example of sexual orientation, with acting on that attraction, such as by marrying someone of the same sex.

The first is not an issue because the person has no control over same sex attraction. He does have control over whether or not he acts on it.

Taking it further, if a homosexual needed treatment for injuries that resulted from homosexual activity, then a doctor should provide treatment, but on the basis that the patient would stop that activity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he continued it, the doctor would not be obliged to keep dishing out treatment.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to be clear, I have not said anywhere that I think a medic should decline to treat a patient on the grounds of sexual orientation. Nor that I would decline to provide other types of service to someone on such grounds.

You're confusing same sex attraction, an example of sexual orientation, with acting on that attraction, such as by marrying someone of the same sex.

The first is not an issue because the person has no control over same sex attraction. He does have control over whether or not he acts on it.

If a homosexual needed treatment for injuries that resulted from homosexual activity, then a doctor should provide treatment, but on the basis that the patient would stop that activity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he continued it, the doctor would not be obliged to keep dishing out treatment.

so you would not treat a practising homosexual? And yes you would be wrong.

[Spud]

so you would not treat a practising homosexual?

Yes I would, but I would not perform a same sex marriage ceremony for him. Also I would not continue to treat him if his illness was being made worse by homosexual activity that he had been advised to stop. Just as with any kind of medical treatment.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I would, but I would not perform a same sex marriage ceremony for him. Also I would not continue to treat him if his illness was being made worse by homosexual activity that he had been advised to stop. Just as with any kind of medical treatment.

but you think that anyone refusing to treat a gay person because of their conscience is ok? And not treating a Jewish person is OK, if that is against your conscience? Struggling to undundetstand what you are arguing for.

[Spud]

so you would not treat a practising homosexual?

It's possible to treat him/her without endorsing or promoting homosexual activity. It's not possible to bake a cake saying 'support same sex marriage' without endorsing homosexual activity.

[Gordon]

Yes I would, but I would not perform a same sex marriage ceremony for him.

Then don't become a Registrar and you won't have to.

Also I would not continue to treat him if his illness was being made worse by homosexual activity that he had been advised to stop. Just as with any kind of medical treatment.

So, if we exclude STD's (which apply to heterosexual people too) exactly what 'illness' are you referring to in relation to homosexual activity?

You seem to be thinking along the lines of, say, emphysema and smoking - so what specifically are you claiming?

[floo]

What is wrong with homosexual activity?

[Spud]

but you think that anyone refusing to treat a gay person because of their conscience is ok?

Where did I say that?

And not treating a Jewish person is OK, if that is against your conscience? Struggling to undundetstand what you are arguing for.

The only situation I can think of where not treating a Jewish person would be ok is if they asked for a circumcision that they didn't actually need.

[wigginhall]

Some Christians seem fascinated by what men get up to in bed.   I don't know why.

[Nearly Sane]

It's possible to treat him/her without endorsing or promoting homosexual activity. It's not possible to bake a cake saying 'support same sex marriage' without endorsing homosexual activity.

it is indeed, but you weren't asked that.

[Nearly Sane]

Where did I say that?The only situation I can think of where not treating a Jewish person would be ok is if they asked for a circumcision that they didn't actually need.

I didn't say you did , see question mark. Why are you misrepresenting what you are being asked? Please explain what you think 'conscience' allows you to refuse.

[Gordon]

It's possible to treat him/her without endorsing or promoting homosexual activity.

This might come as a shock, Spud, but medics tend not to be judgmental and, moreover, in most clinical situations the sexual orientation of the person is irrelevant to the treatment provided.

It's not possible to bake a cake saying 'support same sex marriage' without endorsing it homosexual activity.

Of course it is: you just make the cake to meet the needs of your customer and keep your opinions to yourself.

[Spud]

I didn't say you did , see question mark. Why are you misrepresenting what you are being asked? Please explain what you think 'conscience' allows you to refuse.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I would say no one should do something their conscience tells them is wrong.