Freakenstein covered most of you post for me, so I won't repeat what he said.
Hospitals aren't around every other corner you know.
Why not? Why aren't there more hospitals? My source could be mistaken, but from what I understand, there's so much red tape on hospitals that it's hard for new hospitals to be built.
Admittedly, I don't know too much about the legislation behind constructing new hospitals. Regardless, if hospitals are so few in number, then we should look into why they're so few in number and what the consequences are.
The doctor's personal beliefs are not the patients, and if the patient wants a certain treatment the doctor doesn't agree with, then either another doctor can deal with it or that doctor can suck it up and realize that pressing one's belief on another is wrong.
If a doctor doesn't want to pull a dead fetus out of a woman's body or kill another human being (regardless as to whether they're suffering or not), they shouldn't be forced to. If someone works towards a medical degree so that they can help other people, the last thing we should do is force them to do something they don't want to do (unless, as I previously mentioned, they sign a contract).
... Really?
There is a limit on what you should be allowed to exclude, you have responsibilities as a Doctor, or any medical practitioner.
Should there be a limit? If so, who should determine that limit?
We should let hospitals decide on what that limit is. If people aren't happy with said limit, then they can take their business elsewhere. Keep in mind we're not talking about emergencies.
you have responsibilities as a Doctor, or any medical practitioner
As determined by the contract that they sign.
Would we permit this for a lawyer, judge, police officer or scientist? We all know that we would not.
If I go to someone and they say they won't do
that but they will do
this, then their responsibility is
this, not
that. If I go to someone who says they won't do
that, but they will do
this, but they end up not doing
this like they said they would, then there is an issue.
The idea behind abortions is one that should be nationally (preferably internationally but we all know that won't happened) clarified. Is it classed as killing if done before 3, 5 months? If so, then it can't really be allowed. It's not like there aren't alternatives either.
I do not believe in an all knowing entity, be it god or man. No person, no government, should ever have this kind of power.
I won't delve into this issue here because it would require that I explain my whole political philosophy.
A Hospital isn't a religious establishment, regardless of whether it's founders carry religious morals.
To me, this is like saying "You can't mix pickles and ice cream," in which case I would reply, "watch me." A hospital built on religious views
is a hospital based off of religious views, regardless as to whether you support it or not.
If a hospital isn't a religious establishment, but there's a hospital that is a religious establishment, then either you're wrong or you believe the term "hospital" refers to a medical center that isn't established on religious views. If the latter, then you're merely arguing semantics.
I find it odd that you consider having all hospitals provide patients with what treatments they want imposing on freedom.
People have the freedom to choose which hospitals they go to and which treatments they desire but they should not have the freedom to demand a hospital does something they do not want to do. To say that people should have the freedom to demand hospitals provide certain treatments is like saying people should have the freedom to come into my house and take food out of my refrigerator.
Here's the general idea. The only freedoms that should be restricted are freedoms that impose on other person's freedoms and property. To say that patients should be free to force hospitals to provide certain treatments is the wrong kind of freedom that shouldn't be sought after. Hospitals should be free to offer whatever services they want, and in return, everyone else is free to choose whether they do business with this hospital. The only exception is during an emergency when one doesn't have time to make a choice, but I'm pretty sure emergencies alone don't support hospitals.
My point is, people may just go to the nearest hospital and be unaware that it would not offer something, because logically one would assume a hospital would offer such a basic treatment.
That person must then go to a different hospital. We don't force every grocery store to stock up on Macarons just so that someone wanting Macarons doesn't accidentally go to a store without Macarons.
As I said a few paragraphs back, when there aren't many hospitals in an area, then we must figure out why there aren't many hospitals in said area and what the impact of having so few hospitals is having on that specific area.
I think it would be Ok for religious hospitals to give selective treatments, assuming several things:
1. They receive no government funding. Receive government funding and be secular.
2. Have another secular hospital within a decent distance from the first hospital. This would mean that you don't have to go a hundred miles to find the operation you want.
Very well said. I would fully support this criteria.
Having said that, what exactly is the point of having a religious hospital? Why not just make a secular one, and increase the amount of people willing to come to it?
Nuns.
