| Author | Topic | AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts |  Posted - 03 Aug 2007 : 17:25:07  
| Recently, I was listening to one of my favorite radio talk shows, "The Radio Factor", with Bill O'Reiley. Now Bill wasn't on, but there was a substitute host, Dom Geradano (I think that is how he spells it).
At any rate, one of the subjects (among many) that was being discussed on "The Factor" was this: There was a poll recently taken that revealed that many doctors and pharmacists are refusing, under religious grounds (and not all of these are Christian, by the way), to perform certain medical tasks and services.
One situation was a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for the RU86, so called "Abortion pill". Another situation was a pair of doctors that refused to artificially enseminate a lesbian woman, not because she was gay, but because she was single. Both situations were motivated by religious prohibition.
Now, I personally believe that any doctor that refuses to perform an immoral act,such as abortion, is fine by me. However, I am not so sure about, in the case of the pharmacist, the refusal to prescribe the RU86 pill, since, as I understand it, the pill does not actually abort a fetus. Also, where do we draw the line between justifiable moral conviction, and religious zealotry? I mean, the Pharisees of Jesus' day were full of religious convictions, but their morality was certainly suspect.
Bear in mind, I am, under no circumstances, trying to justify any kind of public lynching of those who are morally justified in their convictions. However, I am not so sure that the issue is without it's fogginess. I would like to, cautiously and rationally, see what many of you think about this.
I realize that this can be a rather touchy subject. Please leave the barbs, ad hominems, and religious rhetoric at home. And please, let's not attack anyone's Christian walk because we may not see eye to eye.
|
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 03 Aug 2007 : 18:00:33
| | I believe life begins at conception , & is given by God . Therefore , & as hard as it may be to practice that in all circumstances , it's up to Him whether or not that life reaches maturity . |
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser |  |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 03 Aug 2007 : 20:28:26
| quote:
I believe life begins at conception , & is given by God . Therefore , & as hard as it may be to practice that in all circumstances , it's up to Him whether or not that life reaches maturity .
Shred, I am with you on all of that, but that isn't really what I am asking. I doubt you will find anyone here who disagrees with you thoughts on abortion (at least, I doubt you will), but what about other medical services and practices that may or may not violate certain religious tenets? What are the acceptable parameters for making such calls? |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 03 Aug 2007 : 20:39:08
| quote:
but what about other medical services and practices that may or may not violate certain religious tenets? What are the acceptable parameters for making such calls?
I'm not sure what you mean mate . Do you mean like organ donation ? I think it would be difficult to make a blanket ruling on every medical procedure practiced today . |
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 03 Aug 2007 : 23:29:15   
| I would say that medicine in this country is business and as such I believe that a doctor or other medical professional (outside of employees of the government) in private practice has a right to decide whatever they want regarding providing services with the understanding that it may directly affect "business". My personal opinion is that any private business can even exercise various discriminatory practices if they like although it would probably not bode well for their pocketbook. That is simply economics. All of that aside I personally, if I were a physician, would probably resist the pressure from pharmaceutical companies to prescribe most newly released drugs simply on the basis of the poor extended research currently being required by the FDA. I would not want my patients to end up as statistics on the evening news for my having put them on some "maintenance" drug that the drug company wanted me to prescribe like, Avandia, Lipitor, Lovinox etc... the list of dangerous medications is actually quite extensive. There is an ever-growing number of people who are taking multiple "maintenance" medications (the implications of possble interactions between various combinations of these and other drugs has become practically unresearchable) and the pharmaceutical companies get their favorite thing "recurring income". Lots of customers for life. Forget actually curing people... treating symptoms is much more profitable... The healthiest old-timers that I usually encounter are those 90+ year olds whose story is usually somthing like "this is the first time I've ever been to the hospital". Life expectancy of doctors is actually lower than many other professions yet we go to them for advice on how to live longer? That's hilarious !!! Would you go to someone who is afraid of heights to learn how to sky-dive? LOL
...but I digress ....The issue at hand is that yes I believe that unless you are seeing a government health worker that they retain the right to refuse to provide services based on whatever their little old heart desires... but that's just my opinion...
and I even somehow applaud those who are willing to stand up and voice their convictions on certain issues... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 03 Aug 2007 : 23:39:09
| | Hey... how about the taxpayer funded transgender treatment being provided for convicted criminals while low income honest working folks go without insurance and healthcare? This is just as much a disgrace as concern for some unmarried sexually deviant girl getting infirtility intended treatment because her lifestyle prevents pregnancy or another who wants the "morning after" pill so she can %$#&@# around without the "inconvenience" of a pregnancy from a guy she does not care about. |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 03 Aug 2007 : 23:49:13
| quote:
I'm not sure what you mean mate . Do you mean like organ donation ? I think it would be difficult to make a blanket ruling on every medical procedure practiced today .
Quite true, you really couldn't. However, I agree with Cpt.Blasto's assessment that (well, at least here in the States) the medical profession is still a private practice, and therefore aheres to the rules set by the Market, which is, in turn, set by the individual businesses (i.e. Physicians). I believe this is one of the reasons there is a contingent of socialists who are pushing for Universal Healthcare in the States for the explicit reason of controlling the decisions that both patient and physician can make. But that is another subject entirely.
I guess what I am attempting to get at is, when does the actual morality of something eliminate care? For example, we've already established that we all agree that abortion is wrong, and a physician has the right and responsibility to refuse to provide that service, on the grounds of faith and/or morality. But what about, say, a doctor that will refuse to do a vasectomy, because he is Catholic, and believes that any kind of contraception, even surgical, is a violation of his faith? I know I am using a ludicrous example. Indulge me, as I am trying to locate a precedent. What do you think? |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 04 Aug 2007 : 17:54:32
| Well,
From the hypocratical standpoint there could be a conundrum. Even in the extreeeemly rare case of performing an abortion in saving the life of the mother etc.
So... can there be extenuating circumstances?
Was Phinehas (Numbers Ch. 25) wrong in the OT for killing a couple in his zeal for the Lord?
The perspective of the judge must be given consideration...
It is an individual thing... If a man's conscience toward the Lord is defiled by performing a certain deed then it would probably be advisable not to do it.
|
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 04 Aug 2007 : 18:05:31
| Our medical system is way different to you guys , so maybe I'm missing something .
I don't think morality should eliminate care at all . It would appear to me that morality should uphold care . Of course I'm speaking in the absolute Christian sense of the word .
The best modern day example of standing on ones' convictions that immediately comes to my mind , is olympian Eric Liddell .
quote:
But what about, say, a doctor that will refuse to do a vasectomy, because he is Catholic, and believes that any kind of contraception, even surgical, is a violation of his faith?
Then according to his faith , it's his right & responsibility to refuse .
We exercise the same principal everyday in our faith , by refusing to participate in the things " normal " people do . |
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser |
Edited by - Shredhead on 04 Aug 2007 18:08:28 | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 05 Aug 2007 : 02:31:13
| quote:
I don't think morality should eliminate care at all . It would appear to me that morality should uphold care .
This is closer to what I am getting at.
quote:
Then according to his faith , it's his right & responsibility to refuse .
We exercise the same principal everyday in our faith , by refusing to participate in the things " normal " people do .
The only problem I have is, isn't that what the Priest and the rabbi and the Jewish leader did, in the parable of the Good Samaritan? All of these individuals in Christ's story did things that kept from violating their consciences (One passing on the other side of the road, thinking the victim dead, and since it was unclean to handle a dead body, that person responded "normally"), yet all three were morally vacant.
I think sometimes you can do things to do things that are 'religiously' proper, and still be morally wrong. Am I overstepping the analysis? |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 05 Aug 2007 : 04:10:33
| Sounds to me like you're stepping-over the Samaratin......
Seriously... We all need lives... 
But really seriously.... I need sleep.... 
and then again why would I want to do what "normal" people do? 
to ummm quote myself... quote:
If a man's conscience toward the Lord is defiled by performing a certain deed then it would probably be advisable not to do it.
And conversely if a man's conscience toward the Lord is defiled in not performing a certain deed then it would probably be advisable to do it. This is why faith is dynamic and living... The interaction between men and God is a personal one which means that we must seek to be "in the moment" with God in every decision we make regardless of opinions of other men. Some things are still just wrong though and God will not direct us to blatantly violate His Commandments. Religious practices (not eating the shewbread, preparing food on the Sabbath etc.) are another story. We will all stand before the only judge who matters one day. So git yer story straight ! <<< three fingers pointing back at me... sorry but the thumb is pointing at you too !
Thank God for Jesus !
|
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 05 Aug 2007 : 11:37:13
| quote:
sorry but the thumb is pointing at you too !
Well, at least it's only the thumb...lol |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 01:59:10
| quote:
The only problem I have is, isn't that what the Priest and the rabbi and the Jewish leader did, in the parable of the Good Samaritan?
No , which is why Jesus pointed them out . They used the Law , combined with their incorrect assumptions , to serve their own purposes .
quote:
yet all three were morally vacant.
It was this fact , that made their decision . Had they been morally upright , they would've done as the Samaritan did . Our morals come from the very heart of God , which is Love . Didn't Jesus demonstrate that , with the woman at the well ?
quote:
And conversely if a man's conscience toward the Lord is defiled in not performing a certain deed then it would probably be advisable to do it. This is why faith is dynamic and living... The interaction between men and God is a personal one which means that we must seek to be "in the moment" with God in every decision we make regardless of opinions of other men. Some things are still just wrong though and God will not direct us to blatantly violate His Commandments.
What CB said |
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 10:32:07
| quote:
No , which is why Jesus pointed them out . They used the Law , combined with their incorrect assumptions , to serve their own purposes .
Yes, they used the Law (that would define 'religious' conviction). Yes, they made incorrect assumptions, but incorrect assumption is not sin. It can lead to sin, it can be a part of sin. But, it is not sin. We have to remember that the victim of the beating, in Christ's parable, was not a Samritan, but was himself, a Jew. This Jew's own brethren walked by him. It took someone different, who the victim himself probably despised, to pull the victim out of his dire straits.
But, having said that, Jesus never indicates that the 3 passers-by were doing anything "wrong". They simply didn't bother to research any further. They all assumed that the victim was dead, and therefore, beyond any human capcity for assistance.
Perhaps they did use the Law to serve their own purposes.I would agree. So, in offering my analysis above, how is that different from what I asked in the first place? It seems to me that there are those who refuse to participate in medical proceedures and services that are in direct violation of God's known laws and/or Scriptural tenets of faith, yet there are also those who use those very tenets to justify laziness, personal opinion, or manipulation.
quote:
If a man's conscience toward the Lord is defiled by performing a certain deed then it would probably be advisable not to do it.
Certainly a Scriptural tenet, and I agree. But, once you choose to become a physician, and you take the oath, "Do no harm," have you not given your word that you will do what you can to provide medical services which live up to that oath? I mean, I work for Wal-Mart, and there are things that I have to do, as required by my agreement to work for that employer. If I am not willing to perform certain tasks that violate personal tenets, then why should I expect to continue in my employment there? Obviously, if I am asked to do something that violates my faith, they can keep their job....but what about if it is just personally inconvenient, not a violation?
|
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 18:24:07
| | The example of the pharmacist is probably an example of this... Just because a person may be against the use of a medication does not necessarily mean that they have the right to interfere with another's ability to chose to buy a legal substance... Performing an abortion requires a bit more participatation on the part of the physician. My brother (a Christian) who works at a convenience store often has to sell merchandise that he would not use nor personally condone but he understands that his individual presence at the counter has no real bearing on whether a customer makes such a purchase or not. He can even have various ways of having direct or subliminal effect on the other person's conscience where he would have no such ability otherwise. The presence of wine at a wedding feast does not cause one to drink it nor to the point of drunkenness. Isn't this similar to the arguement about "hair or skirt length" or "women in pants" etc... God knows the heart ! |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 18:29:37
| | This is exactly where I am going, and I applaud the clarity of language in that, Captain, oh my Captain. Excellent post. |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 07 Aug 2007 : 01:25:04
| quote:
Yes, they made incorrect assumptions, but incorrect assumption is not sin.
It is when it's motivated by a self serving evil that lives within the heart , it's manifested when that evil thwarts the purposes of our Father , in this instance , the Love He has placed in our hearts .
quote:
My brother (a Christian) who works at a convenience store often has to sell merchandise that he would not use nor personally condone but he understands that his individual presence at the counter has no real bearing on whether a customer makes such a purchase or not.
Purely as an example , if I lived in Amsterdam , & worked at a convenience store that sold heroin , would it be ok for me to sell it ?
quote:
It seems to me that there are those who refuse to participate in medical proceedures and services that are in direct violation of God's known laws and/or Scriptural tenets of faith, yet there are also those who use those very tenets to justify laziness, personal opinion, or manipulation.
Definately , & they're not all doctors .
quote:
But, having said that, Jesus never indicates that the 3 passers-by were doing anything "wrong".
True , but I have to ask , what did the Samaritan see that the others didn't ? It doesn't actually say that they thought he was dead , it says they came , saw & left . The difference I read , is the Samaritan had compassion , compassion has to be the fruit of Love ?
|
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser |
Edited by - Shredhead on 07 Aug 2007 05:37:10 | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 07 Aug 2007 : 18:03:34
| quote:
Purely as an example , if I lived in Amsterdam , & worked at a convenience store that sold heroin , would it be ok for me to sell it ?
That's a valid point, but I think it is the extremity of the situation. First of all, you would have to know, being that it is Amsterdam, before you applied for work there that they sell heroine as a legal substance. So where would your moral convictions be at that moment? Secondly, if you didn't know before going in, you would surely be made aware of it by the proprieter of the business, as a condition of employment. So, again, where would your convictions be then?
For example, I am well aware that I could never work for say, Playboy as a photgrapher. I wouldn't even apply for the job. I couldn't hide behind "Well, I sam a Christian, and my moral convictions prevent me from viewing naked women. So can I just photopragh pictures of the landscape?" Let's be realistic (with all due respect, Shred...I am not directing any sarcasm at anyone). Obviously, we all know what that publication deals in. So, I wouldn't be going in eyes wide shut.
quote:
True , but I have to ask , what did the Samaritan see that the others didn't ? It doesn't actually say that they thought he was dead , it says they came , saw & left . The difference I read , is the Samaritan had compassion , compassion has to be the fruit of Love ?
Unequivocally. But, even the heathen are capable of such acts. What Jesus always stresed was to go beyond the religious. Remember in Matthew 7, Jesus would always say, "You have heard it said'x,y,&z', but I say...." It is always a step beyond the letter of the Law. If someone asks you to go a mile, you go two miles.
I am not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that sometimes, even 'religious conviction' creates an excuse for us to not meet people's needs (not wants, I said "needs"). I think this is the problem with the 3 passers-by. I think this is what the Samaritan understood. It isn't that the 3 passersby were necessarily prideful and arrogant (maybe they were, but the Scripture leaves room for perception). It is that the Samaritan understood the need, and took the opportunity. |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 08 Aug 2007 : 04:55:47
| quote:
Purely as an example , if I lived in Amsterdam , & worked at a convenience store that sold heroin , would it be ok for me to sell it ?
Actually I would go so far as to say that drugs in particular are not necessarily a good example since there are many drugs that pharmacists sell that are abused even with a prescription... should we be convicted about that as well? I mean when does the customer's personal responsibility kick in? Even at the wedding feast where Jesus turned water into wine would personal responsibility not be key to whether an individual loses their sobriety or not? Even when drugs that are "legel" to prescribe they are only designated "legal" because the government and the pharmaceutical company have an agreement. Those same drugs sold without a prescription are illegal. My point is that personal responsibility is key in all of these situations. Just because you sell someone a hunting rifle doesn't make you guilty of the crime that they may choose to commit with it later. If a man bought a case of beer and either drank 1 beer every two weeks over the whole year or slammed all 24 right outside in the parking lot and drove away are you expected to know their intent? If you are not responsible for ordering the inventory in the store then you are probably even less culpable. I concede that we all know that most people do drink alcohol in order to get drunk and some of us would possibly struggle with such issues if put in my brother's shoes but I must say that I know him and I also know that God has used him in many situations to speak into people's lives where there may have been no other to do so. Jesus did attend the feast where I am certain that some consumed strong drink... does that mean that He condoned it? |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 08 Aug 2007 : 07:30:24
| quote:
I concede that we all know that most people do drink alcohol in order to get drunk and some of us would possibly struggle with such issues if put in my brother's shoes but I must say that I know him and I also know that God has used him in many situations to speak into people's lives where there may have been no other to do so.
Excellent , & CB , please don't think I was slamming your brother .
Point well taken about personal responsibilty , & I couldn't agree more . I think more people need to realise their personal responsibility , especially judges when faced with a drink driver that just killed someones child .
But I must ask , where does our responsibility as Christians in the world end ?
quote:
So where would your moral convictions be at that moment?
I would hope they were being influenced by God , & not softened by the culture at large , which has helped to legalise it . A culture ,which irrespective of my faith , I'm a part of .
quote:
What Jesus always stresed was to go beyond the religious.
Exactly , that was the whole lesson of the parable , Love , as demonstrated by the first two commandments .
quote:
I am saying that sometimes, even 'religious conviction' creates an excuse for us to not meet people's needs (not wants, I said "needs").
Gasp ! you mean people use false piety to serve their own desires or purposes , & then tell others about it to make themselves appear righteous ?? Certainly not down here ....NOT !
I would say sometimes we use " religious conviction " to serve ourselves , not God . While we may " get away with it" , God knows the truth .
quote:
Jesus did attend the feast where I am certain that some consumed strong drink... does that mean that He condoned it?
That's an excellent point Capn .
Apologies ; sorry if this is hard to follow , it's been a big week .
Will , sorry if I've strayed from your topic .
|
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 08 Aug 2007 : 08:31:11
| quote:
please don't think I was slamming your brother .
No... not at all Shred... I have just been enjoying the conversation... I guess my response may have seemed a little verbose and maybe even a tad defensive but I was just trying to convey my thoughts... I have pondered many of these things myself over the years... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| | Topic | |
|
Media
