[Rhodes22-list] Politics - The Camel's Nose Is Well Inside The Tent

[3drecon at comcast.net]

The problem for doctors is their oath.  I believe it begins "first do no harm..."  Now, they have to conscienciously decide what is harm and what is health.  For some, religious or athiest (perhaps pacifist) they believe any level of life should not be harmed, and the morning after pill harms.  Some don't think so.

That is the difference between serving everyone a cup of coffee and not perfoming a procedure one perceives to be harmful.

Philip


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com> 

> Brad, 
> 
> One might get the idea that you have ... issues ... with Dave. Is there a secret 
> handshake for that club? 
> 
> Herb Parsons 
> 
> S/V O'Jure 
> 1976 O'Day 25 
> Lake Grapevine, N TX 
> 
> S/V Reve de Papa 
> 1971 Coronado 35 
> Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast 
> 
> >>> flybrad at gmail.com 10/26/2006 9:40:58 pm >>> 
> Hank, 
> 
> I caught Dave's post about doctors just before leaving for bed. If my wife, 
> a victim of the Cultural Revolution in China, read that last post of his she 
> would jump through cyberspace and strangle the living out of him for such a 
> response. 
> 
> Dave, go live in state controlled society somewhere for a few years and get 
> back to me on your ideas about doctors. I know, I know, you don't see the 
> difference in the marketplace between cabbies and doctors. I'm convinced 
> you don't believe in markets anyway. 
> 
> Good night, ya'll. 
> 
> Brad 
> 
> 
> On 10/26/06, Hank wrote: 
> > 
> > Dave, 
> > 
> > As I understand it, the RU84 (did I get that right) is a morning after 
> > contraceptive. Hardly a treatment for a serious medical condition. Would 
> > you extend your line of reasoning to the point that all OB/GYN doctors 
> > must 
> > perform abortions? The type of treatments that the pharmacists are 
> > refusing 
> > to treat or support are these same type of convenience treatments, not 
> > those 
> > requiring treatment for a detrimental disease. 
> > 
> > Hank 
> > 
> > On 10/26/06, DCLewis1 at aol.com wrote: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hank, 
> > > 
> > > As you point out, there's a lot to be said for letting you decide how 
> > > to run 
> > > your business, but clearly, that can be taken too far. Society 
> > > has decided, 
> > > for better or worse, that you can't discriminate based on race, 
> > > color, sex, 
> > > religious convictions, physical handicaps, sexual orientation, and 
> > > the list 
> > > may go on. We can discuss the reasonableness of those laws, but 
> > they are 
> > > generally accepted laws. All we need is for a guy like Rummy to step 
> > > forward 
> > > and claim that drunkeness is part of his religious conviction and 
> > there's 
> > > a 
> > > case against the hapless Somali cab driver he wants to hit, and I 
> > suspect 
> > > Rummy 
> > > would win big time (certainly by Somali cab driver standards). 
> > > 
> > > >From my perspective, Moslem cab drivers are a zit to 
> > this problem. The 
> > > real 
> > > problem is born again Christian doctors and pharmacists that deny 
> > > service. 
> > > They are licensed to be in business by the public, they are tightly 
> > > regulated 
> > > and they benefit greatly from that regulation and licensing. I think 
> > is 
> > > reasonable to expect them to provide the service they have represented 
> > > they 
> > > would provide, without discrimination. If a person were in physical 
> > > distress, I 
> > > think it's unreasonable that they be denied service because the medical 
> > > practitioner decided the person was a "good person" or "bad person", or 
> > > the 
> > > disease or affliction at issue was gods revenge, or any other hare 
> > > brained reason. 
> > > If they want to pass judgement on people, diseases, conditions, and/or 
> > > approved drugs they should be philosophers or ethicists; if they want 
> > to 
> > > practice 
> > > medicine they should be doctors or pharmacists. The individual has a 
> > > choice, 
> > > but having made that choice and represented that they would provide a 
> > > service (which is an implicit part of their licensing) they are 
> > committed 
> > > to 
> > > provide the service without discrimination to the best of their 
> > ability. 
> > > 
> > > I see the whole issue as just another kind of discrimination based on 
> > > religious convictions. 
> > > 
> > > Just my opinion. 
> > > 
> > > Dave 
> > > __________________________________________________ 
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list 
> > > 
> > __________________________________________________ 
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list 
> > 
> __________________________________________________ 
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list 
> 
> __________________________________________________ 
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list