• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

No I did not. I specifically said no one forces him to be a practitioner of that profession, thereby eliminating the necessity of his dispensing with his moral convictions to keep practicing.



No, no one is forcing him to be a doctor. If the duties of a doctor are against his religious beliefs, then don't be a doctor. Nothing is violated here at all.

Find me a right to practice medicine despite moral objection to practicing medicine in the constitution and you have a point. Otherwise, you are just being liberal in your interpretation of the first amendment and creating rights where there are none.

You stated that the state has the right to deny a person a license to practice, based on that persons religious convictions that prevent them from despesing birth control that violate their moral beliefs.

There's no way you can justify denying a person the right to practice any profession, based on his religious convictions.
 
If I believe that killing another human being is never moral, I should not join the military. If I find the idea of referring some one to an abortion provider, I should pick a branch of medicine where I won't be in a position to have to do that.

If some one joins the army, we go to war, and they decide they cannot go because they are morally opposed to killing, too bad, you chose the wrong profession. If you find abortion immoral, and then pick a branch of medicine where that will be a problem, it is your problem.

This has nothing to do with freedom of religion. Every one is still free to practice as they choose. That is not an excuse to put yourself in a position where you would have to do something opposed to your beliefs.
 
I would be inclined to believe a fake illegal threat is still illegal. Posted declarations in the entry of that business are presumed to be sincere. In general is it illegal to post false and misleading claims anywhere in a business. For example, if a restaurant jokingly posted a sign on its entry, "Whites Only", the harassing, discriminatory nature of the sign would probably be considered a violation beyond simply poor taste, regardless of whether the business actually followed through with the threat of exclusion or discrimination.

In medicine, the relationship between the patient and the physician is based on a very high level of trust, perhaps more than most businesses. That special trust gives rise to a physician's "ethical obligations to place patients' welfare above their own self-interest and above obligations to other groups, and to advocate for their patients' welfare". That is straight out of the Medical Code of Ethics.

His action would therefore be a violation of medical ethics unless his state's laws imposed a more stringent code. At the least, he would receive some sort of reprimand and the board would ask him to remove the sign.
 
Last edited:
You stated that the state has the right to deny a person a license to practice, based on that persons religious convictions that prevent them from despesing birth control that violate their moral beliefs.

No, not based on their religious convictions. Based on their unwillingness to practice the profession. Their religious convictions are irrelevant to the practice of the profession and no one is denying them their right to practice their religion. In fact, it can only be seen as encouraging the practice of their religion.

There's no way you can justify denying a person the right to practice any profession, based on his religious convictions.

You are correct. And I have not advocated such a thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom