I never will understand how somebody gets into any facet of medicine (e.g. nurse, doctor, pharmacist) and find it okay to deny anybody healthcare solely based on how the person lives. Like dude, there are better ways to make money and be a bigot at the same time. Insurance CEO comes to mind. Cannon fodder as well.
Because nursing school will shove you through even if you should fail and it's an affordable 2 year degree that pays. And that's how I ended up explaining what the P in HIPAA stands for and how to operate a mask. White trash nurses are a meme.
My first college was a technical college that also trained nurses. If there’s one thing I learned it’s that nurses have nasty hygiene habits. Hopefully that gets washed out (pun intended) in the field; eventually.
A nurse once told me to "mind my own fucking business" when I said "are you fucking kidding me?" to seeing her pull off her mask to cough into her hand and go back to the shit she was working on during covid lock downs. In the ER nurses station, surrounded by nurses with asks completely down or with noses poking out.
May I tell you the story of my wife, a doctor, who send us to her parents in lockdown, worked her ass of in full protection a couple of hundred kilometers south, seeing our two little kids only at the weekends, if there were absolutely no symptoms and she didn’t have a shift the day before, for month? When she didn’t not have to work, she sat alone in our flat contemplating on the newly dead people who where to young to die.
Wearing a fucking mask was not the part that sucked during lockdown.
man it must’ve sucked so much ass being a nurse during COVID
Hands down, no question. It was still the early days, april 2020, so I am a bit less forgiving than later in 2020. Nurses already got the short end of the medical stick even before covid
Effing incompetent nurse stabbed me with a hypodermic, then insisted she could go forward with injecting medication into my baby. Why would she need to sterilize or replace it?
I'm in a med lab program and they talk so much shit about nurses in our lectures (no offence). They even hire actors and we do conflict resolution exercises like phoning an exhausted nurse to let her know her third draw just got rejected and they need another sample or order of draw problems ect...
In practice you figure out which nurses are what kind of idiot and cling to the ones who are competent. The upside to the dumb ones is they never figure out why the new girl and the woman looking at retirement get more hours and are specifically called so often.
Definitely treat them. Really enthusiastically. And let everyone else in the building, perhaps people whose inaurance is fucking them, know what room it's in. Obviously stay on hand to make sure nobody gets any mortal injuries. Bill it extra for every part of that. Do not let your patient die. Dying us bad; think of everything left in the world for your patient to do!
This is a happy fantasy. I wish doctors were this cool.
Make sure to leave out the patient name and occupation when filling out the healthcare paperwork to see if they are covered for whatever procedures they need.
"Ah, but they choose to act on it! You see, my old preacher struggled with gay thoughts all the time because of Satan. He told us so nearly every Sunday. But did he act on them? No! He was straight, just as god intended.
So those people having gay thoughts are CHOOSING to be gay when they could pray and get a wife and have children like the lord said."
"You know what I'm talking about; the homosexual fantasies the devil constantly sends into everyone's heads since they became teenagers. Those ones. ... What do you mean 'no'?"
Tangentially related, or at least it made me think of it.
Orson Scott Card said this:
Ender’s childhood is based, albeit loosely, on my own; his relationship with Peter and Valentine is based, not on my actual relationship with my older brother and sister, but rather on the way I conceived those relationships to be when I was Ender’s age. Ender’s revised understanding of Peter late in life parallels in emotion the same revision I went through in my teens as I discovered… my childish view of my older brother was hopelessly wrong
For those that don't know, Peter abused the hell out of Ender. Not a huge spoiler. Another time he said this:
The dark secret of homosexual society … is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse
Then he went on to write several of the same character. Either homosexual or asexual who takes a wife in order to raise children. But it's literally never about the woman. Anton was mostly open about his sexuality but married a woman. Ender had no sexual urges (there was a lot of underage homo-adjacent stuff and some sister stuff, but not necessarily gay) until he married. And did he marry her for her? Nope. The first thing he thinks of is how her 6 kids need him. Ansset is gay and married a woman. It's pretty obvious he believes a lot of folks are gay because they were abused and it's pretty obvious he was abused. And he believes those men should get married and raise children because that's the highest calling.
I'm not usually a "homophobic means closeted homosexual" but I'm of the firm belief that Card is so far in the closet he's finding Christmas presents.
He also wrote Wyrm (teenage girl is biologically destined to be impregnated by worm monster, that’s literally what the entire book is about) and Harts Hope (our hero has to rape a teenage princess in front of her entire kingdom for reasons, this turns her evil and she becomes the main antagonist.)
I act on all the homosexual urges I have. They just happen to be zero. If you have homosexual urges it’s likely because you’re gay. I’m not really sure why this concept is so hard especially for the ultra religious….
Or they're bi. I grew up ultra religious and the choice explanation made more sense to me because I had both homo and hetero urges, and I assumed it was the same for everyone (I thought of people who claimed otherwise as self-righteous). In my mind at the time homosexual urges were just part of people's sinful nature they had to overcome. The whole thing only seems so incoherent from an outside perspective, which I was fortunately able to arrive at after experiencing the world more.
Yeah I bet that was confusing. Being brought up that homosexuality was a choice and you had feelings for both would have been difficult at best, especially before you had a chance to really see how it all worked.
Something like this is what encouraged my wife's conservative grandmother to reconsider her thoughts on the topic. She heard about a gay teen who committed suicide and asked "if it was a choice, why wouldn't they just choose not to be gay instead of killing themselves?"
"if it was a choice, why wouldn't they just choose not to be gay instead of killing themselves?"
Props to gramma. A lot of conservative people honestly just would dismiss it with the backwards logic; "so stupid of them to kill themselves when they could've just chosen not to be gay".
I'm unsure whether they actually believe it themselves, though.
No this is literally it though. They think being gay is a choice because they’re repressed, and constantly feel tempted. They assume everyone feels that, and only gay people give in.
This. When I was a kid, I thought every man in the world had this envy of womanhood and that was the reason women were oversexualized in media, because men wished they looked like that.
That it was just quietly accepted.
Heck in Who Framed Roger Rabbit I thought the line "You don't know how hard it is being a man, looking at a woman, looking the way you do." Was a direct reference to the natural Venus Envy of the male gender.
Nope just my trans ass misinterpreting an erection joke because its the 90s and families and media both aren't allowed to talk about gender with any nuance yet.
The various "Girl Power! Women can do anything!" Tropes were also something young me misinterpreted as "Venus Envy" being the natural state of society. Like women knew they were "superior" and were flaunting it to be mean.
Sexism against women? Young me doesn't know what that is or why fighting it is important. Believed in sexism against men though.. I was so dumb and confused.
Oh, I'm well aware. Not once have I ever been tempted to tickle a pickle that wasn't my own. I've never struggled with homosexual thoughts. If I had I can almost promise I'd be face down in a whole pile of dicks right now.
I was quoting, as accurately as I could, a dipshit I know. I haven't seen him since high school, right after I left the church, but this always stuck with me. I knew that pastor as well. That guy talked all the time about how Satan was going to make everyone gay and how he was tempted so he understood what the youth was going through. I remember being 14 and wondering when I'd get secret gay thoughts because of this dude. Apparently I was so steeped in sin that Satan didn't feel the need to make me want to gobble cocks as well.
It's a damn shame because I think I would have made an excellent gay guy.
I have said for a long time that the number of bisexual people must be huge. All of these right-wingers seem to be equally attracted to men and women, so they're obviously bi and choosing to ignore part of their own sexuality.
As I said to my parents when they said something similar:
Not everyone is a 0 or 6 on the Kinsey scale. Plenty of people have some amount of choice. But not everyone is a 3, either. Most people have a preference. And some people are a 0 or 6. Just because one person with “gay temptations” successfully lived as a heterosexual doesn’t mean everyone can. The world is more complicated than that.
Here's the thing, whether or not it's a "lifestyle" shouldn't even enter into the equation. Healthcare workers are supposed to treat everyone the same, regardless of what the patient has done or how they live. If you can't deal with that, don't go into healthcare.
I've even seen it flipped around by the people who invented the term in the first place. "They call it a lifestyle, but that's a euphemism for gross behavior". Well, not those exact words. "Euphemism" has too many syllables for their education level.
I believe that people are born with the same primitive instincts as everyone else, (survive and reproduce) but they gradually begin to develop their own feelings and sense of being. Some natural, some by trauma, etc, overcoming the expectations of your parents being the biggest hurdle.
I'm just simply saying that people aren't born knowing they're a part of that community until they've come to a realization or a spark.
Just my opinion. Just how I observed a family member and his experiences. Sadly, no one accepted him and he's gone now. But I read his journals about how he felt, came to being, etc afterwards. Just wanted to understand.
Very much not true for all. Some realise things over time, but most were born like they are. Some also do choose things, but it's a very small percentage and that in no way makes it any less important to accept and support.
This was or maybe even still is a thing. My grandpa was forced to wear a sock on his left hand when learning to write as a child. He would be hit if he didn't.
As someone who attends a medical school attached to a religious university, I can tell you this is a mindset that exists quite commonly in the medical field. Many of these people get careers in the multitudes of Catholic hospitals that abuse religious freedom laws to deny certain kinds of healthcare and face absolutely no repercussions for their persistent bigotry.
Medical malpractice is a huge issue for LGBT people - especially trans people who require specific care and are therefore much easier to spot. It's honestly a big issue in the sciences in general, and it's definitely not a new issue, but more likely against specific groups. Women are much more likely to have to be their own advocates to get proper care, often being denied pain medication, told that they're just making up their symptoms, or having their agency denied or choice of treatment being deferred to their husbands (generally when it comes to things that might affect sex, such as surgeries to constrict the vagina after giving birth or having their uterus removed due to medical issues).
And it's not just that trans people often have to understand HRT at a doctorate level in order to fight for their right to the proper care and treatment that they deserve. I have read plenty of stories of trans people being denied care by bigoted healthcare workers - even a case of a woman in New York who only found out she had an aggressive form of cancer after the technician who diagnosed her tests called her to ask her how her chemo was going. Her doctor simply never told her the diagnosis and the only reason that she's still alive is because of that technician who made sure that she got proper treatment after the shock of hearing that she didn't even know that she had cancer.
Bias affects medicine all the way up the chain, from how nurses treat you to what gets taught in schools and even what fields get research funding. I taught my therapist pretty much everything he knows about transgender people, for example - because he's older and they didn't teach about trans people. And I have no qualifications in the field other than being trans and therefore having to teach myself to ensure I get proper care. Many doctors don't know about trans specific medical care despite HRT starting to be researched in the 1920s in Germany (and only reappearing at the end of the 20th century after the Nazis burnt all the research). The medical field is taught based on the white body of a specific weight, which leaves out the differences in care that black people and people above or below that weight require. We only really started looking into what exactly female ejaculate is in the past 30 years or so. AIDS research was denied funding by the US government for at least a year while roughly 120 Americans died of AIDS every day, during which time all bottled medication was pulled from stores and the safety seal was developed and implemented over the course of 3 months because somebody poisoned a couple of bottles of Advil with cyanide.
It's not a new issue, but it's become more prevalent in recent years as people like the student above have become emboldened by recent events - like the rulings that say that doctors don't have to treat certain people if it would "violate their religious beliefs."
This type of stuff is extremely concerning to me. My ability to get life saving medical treatment is based on the whimsy of some superficial judgment some random doctor makes about me? There is no way this can be legal.
Hey now take comfort in the fact that their lives are in the hands of God. Pfft nah it's in the hands of anyone willing to shank them for being a sanctimonious self righteous profligate. Frankly speaking if someone nearly died or dies because of such a scenario where they denied IDK sutures or some shit for religious reasons they wholly deserve to be processed through a morgue incinerator while still alive.
What I always find funny about this is, back when I used to do IT, if I refused to do something for someone who had bible verses on their office wall or a cross necklace I would be the one fired.
I mean, this is correct. You take the oath, you have to live up to it. You will be treating people you don't agree with, and you have to square up with that, or your rep will take a dive.
A friend of mine is a devout Muslim from a very conservative family and a doctor: he believes that his faith has no place in his job and therefore treats all his patients equally.
I think fundamentalists of all religions should take a leaf out of his book.
Someone being LGBT doesn't mean McDonald's is allowed to refuse them service, or ESSO is allowed to refuse to sell them gas, or a gym can refuse them membership. Why the fuck do you think a doctor should be allowed to refuse them treatment for a disease?
Someone being LGBT doesn’t mean McDonald’s is allowed to refuse them service, or ESSO is allowed to refuse to sell them gas, or a gym can refuse them membership.
Patience, patience ... the GOP is working on this as well.
Technically they aren't. By their plan, someone who is LGBT couldn't be refused service at McDonalds because they are to be arrested and thrown in jail on sight. Like, how would they have even gotten into McDonalds much less have the gall to ask for a Big Mac?...
not mistaken, but certain roles like pharmacists, cashiers, nurses, dentists and lab techs dont take that oath. Many doctors now take alternate oaths too, not the original oath.
The Hippocratic oath doesn't cover this at all and actually explicitly forbids abortion and euthanasia. It's really quite antiquated which is why I wrote an oath for myself that I hold to.
There's a lot of debate about the specific meanings of the text, but there are many Christian physicians that will latch onto those passages as an excuse to apply their own beliefs to patient care. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
No. The supreme court case you're thinking of only ruled that the state commission acted unfairly towards the bakery, not necessarily that the bakery was right or wrong in their discrimination.
What? They can totally do those things. They are private businesses who can reject whomever they want. Protected classes are only protected for things like housing, employment, and public things (school/utilities/etc.)
If that were true, the US would still have segregated lunch counters, grocery stores, and private buses. The Supreme Court may be getting us on the way there one day, but right now the only way that private businesses are allowed to discriminate against protected classes is to call the output work a "creative expression" like website design, floral arrangement, or cake decoration, and that's from the 303 Creative case.
Besides, how would it make sense if a company could bar you as a customer for being gay, but be compelled to employ you?
There is no federal law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in public accommodations, like restaurants, theaters and other businesses. However, state and local laws where you live may ban this kind of discrimination.
This would never fly in today's era. Nor should it.
But about two decades ago I dated a gastroenterologist... I think she had around 13 years of schooling.
Anyways, her first day of med school, they made the entire class watch gay porn. Like vicious, graphic, excessively graphic gay porn.
With of course the professor saying if this makes you uncomfortable, you'd best find a new track. Because you ain't going to make it, this is going to be your life: assholes, boils, pus, cancer, shit, piss, if you're going to be a gastroenterologist you're going to have your head up people's asses your whole career....
If medical professionals are punished for refusing to treat patients because of race, then the same goes for refusing to treat someone for "having different lifestyle".
Doctors and nurses see and take care of a lot of disgusting people, or people in disgusting states in all walks of the life. Them being LGBT should be the last hill for them to die on. Only shows how sheltered they have lived.
That line of thinking also breaks down once you consider that life itself is the OG anomaly, and that the evolution of complex life was fueled by a never ending torrent of anomalies.
Because of their religious beliefs. Someday as a nation we need to reconcile religious freedom with freedom from other peoples religious ideas. We generally just give religious people whatever they want, presumably to shut them up and make them go away-- but that doesnt work.
Do the students know the horrific, gruesome, batshit crazy stuff doctors have to witness and deal with? Not just like objects stuck in orifices, but mentally ill and abusive patients, deathly contagious ones, slow motion tragedy, stuff oozing out of the body you wouldn't believe. Criminal patients, criminal bosses and companies, drama with staff, corporate drama, other fucked up or abusive doctors, drug abuse (from the staff), plenty of sex scandals...
...And their thought is: "Patients that want to rub their genitals on the same sex? Eww. I refuse to deal with that, even professionally."
Wut?
Let's play devil's advocate and say the bigotry is somehow justified (when it's not). Still, how does that even work? Like, an anti-vaxx nurse I know makes at least some sense, by comparison.
Excellent. And they can take the pharmacists who have "personal or religious beliefs" and get rid of them too. No one should need to ask some other citizen's personal permission for a service I contracted with my own doctor and medical company.
There are even some drug store cashiers that will refuse to sell condoms. Americans need to learn that if it doesnt affect you personally, its not their place to pretend they are a stakeholder in anyone else's life. Stay in your effing lane, American healthcare workers. No one cares what you dont like or what your personal sky-fairy tells you. Last I heard "freedom of religion" was actually more "freedom from the tyranny of religion" when it was implemented by the nations founders.
While they are at it, Americans should stay out of other peoples bedrooms too. If they arent part of the situation, they don't get a vote. As long as its consensual between two adult humans, its no one elses business what they do in there.
I feel like there are a surprisingly large percentage of the population that just take most things at face value. It takes something painfully overt for someone to notice, and it's usually only spotted on something trivial, like fifty thousand five star raving reviews for a beer coozie on amazon.
Astroturfing is real, and if you don't think that a government would do it... Wow you have a lot of history to catch up on.
ah yes, i too considered being a doctor so i can feel comfortable in my job. but then i realized when I'm treating a severed limb in an accident trying to stop buckets of blood flowing, that the person might be gay. ew, imagine. so i decided it's not worth it.
I wish this is how it was at my medical school. My med school is attached to a deeply religious university and some of our professors said some pretty wild shit in lectures. I was almost always the one to key up on the mic in recorded lectures to fight them on it.
I'm sad to say there were a couple lectures that I was just too demoralized to fight back directly, but I did talk to my classmates to correct the record after those lectures.
Deeply religious and... Medical School feels like two things that should be separate lol.
Wouldn't the solution for Cardiac Ataxia be to pray it away in their eyes?
It is an actual, accredited medical school and we still take the same board exams. The subjects where the religiosity shows the most are the ethics classes, abortion, and LGBTQ+ healthcare. Otherwise, the most prominent manifestation was prayer at the start of lectures and exams.
In the 90s I had two different doctors tell me they would not see me as long as I was sexually active. Things seem better these days but its part of the reason us older gays are loathe to disclose to our doctors.
This culture war nonsense has ruined us. In a humane world a person should be embarrassed and shamed for saying something like 'what if I don't feel comfortable with their lifestyle' - in ANY situation, not to mention a medical one. How about just some basic human decency? What about live and let live? Ideas that we'd all want for ourselves but somehow some of us find it so difficult to afford to others.
And before anyone comes at me with some 'paradox of tolerance' nonsense - no, in the tolerant world I dream of, there is no room for the intolerant. We cannot tolerate the intolerant if we want to live in a tolerant world.
The patients sexual orientation does in fact have no influence on their health. The only groups out of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum where you have some "right to deny" healthcare may be trans and intersex people due to them having special conditions and you might not have the knowledge to treat them accordingly. For the rest you are just batshit stupid if you care that much about what people do in their private time.
that doesn't mean you refuse to treat us though, it just means your treatment might take the form of giving a referral to a specialist. you don't refuse to treat a patient with glasses just cause you aren't an optometrist.
Yeah, I’m going to echo the other comment - I don’t think doctors should ever be able to deny trans people healthcare. If it’s something out of their expertise, a referral might make sense. But right now there’s a lot of movement towards denying us healthcare, and I don’t think we should be giving that side any more excuses for their bigotry.
I partly disagree with your reasoning but I agree 100% with your conclusion..
I think that statistically heterosexual women have some significantly different healthcare needs than lesbian women and gay men and straight men also have some statistical differences, but as a healthcare professional you have no right whatsoever to refuse to treat based on those differences.
(I wouldn't count referral to a specialist as a refusal to treat.)
Republicans: we hereby decree that physicians needing to see blood is part of the woke agenda. Henceforth we will be removing this requirement from all curricula.
When I lived there we had hospitals that were "no-go's". I was looking to get a surgery done, and everyone I worked with told me not to go to $hospital_X, but instead go to $hospital_Y instead.
Are they still considered professional doctors if they are willing to do harm to their patients by ignoring the latest scientific research on patient care because it makes them feel icky?
I mean, that is sweat and all as something that particular professor thinks, but doctors in the United States don’t have to treat anyone they don’t want to, and we already see them denying prenatal care based on marital status. I’m sure sexual preference are just around the bend.
I am an orderly that was in surgical services and we had a young girl covered in nazi tattoos that came in for surgery. We had to care for her the same as anyone else. Of course we all talked mad shit after that anesthesia kicked in.
I agree there. The talkin shit after is where the “fun” happens. Because yeah. We have to treat but that doesn’t mean we need to not process what we just went through.
the guy having a heart attack by the mcdonalds with nazi tattoos is a nazi. not the same as literal hitler. still an inhuman piece of shit. still worthless. still required to provide care. not the target of a worldwide multinational military operation requiring millions of russians to take berlin.
I don't think so. If you do not retain the right to refuse service you must save Hitlers life. Given that the logic leads us to this ultimatum u must choose save Hitlers life ur retain the right to refuse service based on personal moral views.
Look I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this but let's try and be a little nuance about this.
I don't think it is moral to force someone to do something they don't want to do for whatever reason. Eg u shouldn't be allowed to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to completion. Nor should u be forced to help said person end that pregnancy if you don't want to. I think if u don't want to end it you should be forced to give them the contact of someone who will.
If you are going to force someone to medically treat someone for something you don't want to do, u by definition do not believe it is beneficial to them and is thus a violation of ur oath.
The oath is broken before anyone forced anything. Treat people, or find another career because health care is incompatible with this homophobic bullshit.
If u become a soldier do ur job leave ur personal crap at the door or get a new job. U just justified the actions of the Nazis "I'm just following orders".
My argument is that you should have said choice. I simply think you should be allowed to make said choice without retribution. If completely leaving the profession is the only other option then all soldiers will be war criminals and all doctors will be without personal morality.
Prior to the Nuremberg trials individual responsibility for disobeying unlawful orders was an implicit judgement and not explicitly stated.
And if we look at examples of people using the defence of I was disobeying orders due to them being in violation of international law they got arrested and locked up for the rest of their life (see David McBride).
It's good to know that we have advanced as a society. We're talking about now, not 80 years ago.
You also seem to be under the impression that making a "correct" choice would be without consequences. It would be nice if the moral or legal choice always had positive consequences for the chooser, but that's not always the case. That doesn't chance the morality or legality of the choice. Yes, soldiers have been persecuted for disobeying an illegal order; either legally or socially; but that doesn't change their duty.
(Also, David McBride was arrested for releasing confidential documents, something that is very much illegal. We can debate the morality, but that's not relevant here because it's not remotely related to a soldier refusing to follow illegal orders.)
A soldier following an illegal order may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to not follow illegal orders. A doctor choosing to not treat patients because they don't like something about them may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to treat all patients.
A doctor's agency does not supersede another's right to live. A doctor doesn't get to choose who lives or dies; and yes, even requiring that the doctor refer the patient to a different doctor would result in people dying.
I mean they didn't. "Do your job or do something else" and "I'm just following orders" are worlds apart.
One is expressing the opinion that if a person freely chooses a profession but then refuses to practice it for asinine reasons they should choose a different profession because they are incapable of doing the job correctly.
The other is an excuse Nazi's used to justify the shit they did.
Not the same.
The real problem here is that allowing medical professionals to pick and choose like you describe based on their personal values will lead to people dying. That's the entire reason for the Hippocratic oath, to provide an unbiased framework of ethics under which physicians practice.
Hypothetically, say you're straight, have a one night stand with your preferred gender and get AIDS. You feel sick go to a doctor and they refuse to treat you because AIDS is the "gay" disease and since you have AIDS, you must be gay and this Doctor doesn't "agree with that lifestyle." So you ask for one who does, turns out you're in a Catholic hospital and no one "agrees with that lifestyle" here. Sorry, you're fucked and maybe have to drive a few hours for treatment now because of some judgmental assholes. Or you die from AIDS because you live in America, in a red state, where you have no other options.
That phrase btw? The one about lifestyles? That's a fucking dog whistle.
I mean they didn't. "Do your job or do something else" and "I'm just following orders" are worlds apart.
They are both an appeal to a moral framework higher than themselves.
One is expressing the opinion that if a person freely chooses a profession but then refuses to practice it for asinine reasons they should choose a different profession because they are incapable of doing the job correctly.
If I'm a bricklayer I can refuse services for any asinine reason I want that's just liberty, personal autonomy, and free will. Why is any other progression any different.
The other is an excuse Nazi's used to justify the shit they did.
Yep an excuse of I could not refuse "service" because I was told I had to because i had no liberty to do otherwise. The service of medics is healthcare the service of a soldier is death.
Not the same.
The parallels similar enough to raise real concerns.
The real problem here is that allowing medical professionals to pick and choose like you describe based on their personal values will lead to people dying. That's the entire reason for the Hippocratic oath, to provide an unbiased framework of ethics under which physicians practice.
Which Hippocratic oath? Cos the original forbids prescribing death, allowing abortion, or c sections, it also says "". The newer one "" still says "". And the only one that does not is the "" which is the only one with explicit statements of neutrality but doesn't really provide much ethical framework beyond that. And yeah people die every day should I be forced to donate all my money to stop that? U have internet and a phone that decision has killed a countable number of people that you could have prevented.
Hypothetically, say you're straight, have a one night stand with your preferred gender and get AIDS. You feel sick go to a doctor and they refuse to treat you because AIDS is the "gay" disease and since you have AIDS, you must be gay and this Doctor doesn't "agree with that lifestyle." So you ask for one who does, turns out you're in a Catholic hospital and no one "agrees with that lifestyle" here. Sorry, you're fucked and maybe have to drive a few hours for treatment now because of some judgmental assholes. Or you die from AIDS because you live in America, in a red state, where you have no other options.
If its a government hospital they cannot refuse service for that reason and must find someone willing to service you because the state services are bound by anti discrimination laws. An individual should have the right to refuse to service an individual if servicing them is against their religion etc. Its the equivalent of forcing a Muslim chef to make pork because if they refuse it could cause harm to the person who wants to eat pork.
That phrase btw? The one about lifestyles? That's a fucking dog whistle.
The term dog whistle has been so overused to the point it just means something said by people I disagree with. Language is an ever changing thing its simply a set of sounds with an agreed upon meaning. People then attempt to prevent people from conveying particular meaning they do this by restricting the sounds that convey this meaning. So people come up with a new set of sounds that mean they same thing. Hence u have a dig whistle. Winnie the pooh is a dog whistle for fuck Xi Jinping because the CCP banned the original words that means that. A dog whistle is what u get when u censor and silence opinions. A dog whistle is not inherently a bad thing its simply an adaptation to censorship.
To be fair, if you don't want to follow orders without question, you will find being a foot soldier particularly unpleasant.
But your moral equivalence between following orders to kill without question and saving lives and healing people without question is utterly bogus and broken.
I swapped the word for one profession with the word of another. In ancient Greek the word technē often used in philosophical discussion such as this was used for both interchangeably.
Why is it utterly bogus and broken. Ur opinion does not negate mine lest u have an argument to back your claim.
If you can find no moral distinction between being contractually obliged to help someone get well and being contractually obliged to kill people, then I think that not just your logic is broken, but your morals and your humanity. You equated opposites.
I mean it is normal to want to discuss anything. I think one of the main problems of today is actually we can't discuss anything for more than five minutes before someone gets lynched. But that is also because there are so many people that "discuss" stuff in bad faith that everyone else has probably lost faith in discussions.
On the issue of hysteria and normalizing stuff, in the span of a six months the US degraded from being the center of many branches of science and tech to a country that redacts its articles to censor words like transmission (because it contains trans, yea) and gender. I don't think you can call it hysteria when it is really happening and has become the new normal.
"you will think it's ridiculous"
I will think what is ridiculous? This event described in the meme? I find it worrying that someone gets so uncomfortable that he or she can't treat a person based on their sexual and or gender orientation. On the other hand everyone has their limits and being a doctor is hard and perhaps it really is not for that person or he or she can't deal with this. And this goes for both sides. You may be very liberally minded doctor but what happens when a wounded person they bring to the hospital turns out to be someone who raped a child? It is fucking brutal. If you can't even make it past sexual orientation, how the fuck are you going to deal with such stuff?
I never will understand how somebody gets into any facet of medicine (e.g. nurse, doctor, pharmacist) and find it okay to deny anybody healthcare solely based on how the person lives. Like dude, there are better ways to make money and be a bigot at the same time. Insurance CEO comes to mind. Cannon fodder as well.
Because nursing school will shove you through even if you should fail and it's an affordable 2 year degree that pays. And that's how I ended up explaining what the P in HIPAA stands for and how to operate a mask. White trash nurses are a meme.
Only one P in HIPAA actually. Common mistake. https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/php/resources/health-insurance-portability-and-accountability-act-of-1996-hipaa.html
Yeah it's probably time to sleep... But the memes!
Don't feel too bad, I once had a ticket come across my desk for HIPPO violations. It took half the day to figure out what they were talking about.
Moo deng noooooooo!
Oh nooo, was the hippo OK?
HIPPO violations? You'd think those websites would be blocked by the firewall.
My first college was a technical college that also trained nurses. If there’s one thing I learned it’s that nurses have nasty hygiene habits. Hopefully that gets washed out (pun intended) in the field; eventually.
A nurse once told me to "mind my own fucking business" when I said "are you fucking kidding me?" to seeing her pull off her mask to cough into her hand and go back to the shit she was working on during covid lock downs. In the ER nurses station, surrounded by nurses with asks completely down or with noses poking out.
10/10
On the one hand you're 1000% right but man it must've sucked so much ass being a nurse during COVID, I probably would've been close to snapping 24/7.
May I tell you the story of my wife, a doctor, who send us to her parents in lockdown, worked her ass of in full protection a couple of hundred kilometers south, seeing our two little kids only at the weekends, if there were absolutely no symptoms and she didn’t have a shift the day before, for month? When she didn’t not have to work, she sat alone in our flat contemplating on the newly dead people who where to young to die.
Wearing a fucking mask was not the part that sucked during lockdown.
I really dont think they meant the masks sucked. I think they meant more like what you just described.
I know. It was more a post covidal rant at the nurses. Even if you are at your limit those masks are self protection.
Hands down, no question. It was still the early days, april 2020, so I am a bit less forgiving than later in 2020. Nurses already got the short end of the medical stick even before covid
this instance was just particularly memorable.
Effing incompetent nurse stabbed me with a hypodermic, then insisted she could go forward with injecting medication into my baby. Why would she need to sterilize or replace it?
I'm in a med lab program and they talk so much shit about nurses in our lectures (no offence). They even hire actors and we do conflict resolution exercises like phoning an exhausted nurse to let her know her third draw just got rejected and they need another sample or order of draw problems ect...
In practice you figure out which nurses are what kind of idiot and cling to the ones who are competent. The upside to the dumb ones is they never figure out why the new girl and the woman looking at retirement get more hours and are specifically called so often.
Don't they have a lot of male nurses where you are? Maybe because it's Seattle and a big town, but my parents in a smallish town had them too.
I'm in Toronto and just wrapping up my program so I can't really comment on that but I personally know a few male and female nurses.
...HIPAA has one P.
What if the patient is a health care CEO who is known for denying health care to others?
Definitely treat them. Really enthusiastically. And let everyone else in the building, perhaps people whose inaurance is fucking them, know what room it's in. Obviously stay on hand to make sure nobody gets any mortal injuries. Bill it extra for every part of that. Do not let your patient die. Dying us bad; think of everything left in the world for your patient to do!
This is a happy fantasy. I wish doctors were this cool.
This is the way.
Make sure to leave out the patient name and occupation when filling out the healthcare paperwork to see if they are covered for whatever procedures they need.
Hippocratic Oath. So you turn off their life support obviously
I would still help them, I may stab right after tho.
Oh I’m sorry, I can’t seem to find the vein. Gosh, have you been drinking enough fluids?
Same answer to both; cowardly traditionalist afraid to speak their minds.
From traditional/conservative families which value the status of being a doctor, not the "helping patients" part. Prejudiced.
This.
There are so, so many doctors who ended up in the profession merely for the prestige.
Doctors aren't smarter than everyone else, they just had the resources to be able to study for more years.
On a similar vein, I don't understand doctors who are young earth creationists. Your whole job is understanding biology.
The absolute gall they have to call it a "lifestyle" like people choose to live that way one day
It's not a fucking lifestyle, LGBTQ+ people just are and they exist
They don't choose to suddenly be that way one day, they have been that way their entire life and discover that about themselves
"Ah, but they choose to act on it! You see, my old preacher struggled with gay thoughts all the time because of Satan. He told us so nearly every Sunday. But did he act on them? No! He was straight, just as god intended.
So those people having gay thoughts are CHOOSING to be gay when they could pray and get a wife and have children like the lord said."
-Some dipshit I know
"He resisted his homosexual urges, and remained faithful to his heterosexual wife until the very day he shot himself."
"You know what I'm talking about; the homosexual fantasies the devil constantly sends into everyone's heads since they became teenagers. Those ones. ... What do you mean 'no'?"
Tangentially related, or at least it made me think of it.
Orson Scott Card said this:
For those that don't know, Peter abused the hell out of Ender. Not a huge spoiler. Another time he said this:
Then he went on to write several of the same character. Either homosexual or asexual who takes a wife in order to raise children. But it's literally never about the woman. Anton was mostly open about his sexuality but married a woman. Ender had no sexual urges (there was a lot of underage homo-adjacent stuff and some sister stuff, but not necessarily gay) until he married. And did he marry her for her? Nope. The first thing he thinks of is how her 6 kids need him. Ansset is gay and married a woman. It's pretty obvious he believes a lot of folks are gay because they were abused and it's pretty obvious he was abused. And he believes those men should get married and raise children because that's the highest calling.
I'm not usually a "homophobic means closeted homosexual" but I'm of the firm belief that Card is so far in the closet he's finding Christmas presents.
He also wrote Wyrm (teenage girl is biologically destined to be impregnated by worm monster, that’s literally what the entire book is about) and Harts Hope (our hero has to rape a teenage princess in front of her entire kingdom for reasons, this turns her evil and she becomes the main antagonist.)
Card’s fucked up a lot more than “closet gay.”
I act on all the homosexual urges I have. They just happen to be zero. If you have homosexual urges it’s likely because you’re gay. I’m not really sure why this concept is so hard especially for the ultra religious….
Or they're bi. I grew up ultra religious and the choice explanation made more sense to me because I had both homo and hetero urges, and I assumed it was the same for everyone (I thought of people who claimed otherwise as self-righteous). In my mind at the time homosexual urges were just part of people's sinful nature they had to overcome. The whole thing only seems so incoherent from an outside perspective, which I was fortunately able to arrive at after experiencing the world more.
Yeah I bet that was confusing. Being brought up that homosexuality was a choice and you had feelings for both would have been difficult at best, especially before you had a chance to really see how it all worked.
Something like this is what encouraged my wife's conservative grandmother to reconsider her thoughts on the topic. She heard about a gay teen who committed suicide and asked "if it was a choice, why wouldn't they just choose not to be gay instead of killing themselves?"
Props to gramma. A lot of conservative people honestly just would dismiss it with the backwards logic; "so stupid of them to kill themselves when they could've just chosen not to be gay".
I'm unsure whether they actually believe it themselves, though.
No this is literally it though. They think being gay is a choice because they’re repressed, and constantly feel tempted. They assume everyone feels that, and only gay people give in.
This. When I was a kid, I thought every man in the world had this envy of womanhood and that was the reason women were oversexualized in media, because men wished they looked like that.
That it was just quietly accepted.
Heck in Who Framed Roger Rabbit I thought the line "You don't know how hard it is being a man, looking at a woman, looking the way you do." Was a direct reference to the natural Venus Envy of the male gender.
Nope just my trans ass misinterpreting an erection joke because its the 90s and families and media both aren't allowed to talk about gender with any nuance yet.
The various "Girl Power! Women can do anything!" Tropes were also something young me misinterpreted as "Venus Envy" being the natural state of society. Like women knew they were "superior" and were flaunting it to be mean.
Sexism against women? Young me doesn't know what that is or why fighting it is important. Believed in sexism against men though.. I was so dumb and confused.
Oh, I'm well aware. Not once have I ever been tempted to tickle a pickle that wasn't my own. I've never struggled with homosexual thoughts. If I had I can almost promise I'd be face down in a whole pile of dicks right now.
I was quoting, as accurately as I could, a dipshit I know. I haven't seen him since high school, right after I left the church, but this always stuck with me. I knew that pastor as well. That guy talked all the time about how Satan was going to make everyone gay and how he was tempted so he understood what the youth was going through. I remember being 14 and wondering when I'd get secret gay thoughts because of this dude. Apparently I was so steeped in sin that Satan didn't feel the need to make me want to gobble cocks as well.
It's a damn shame because I think I would have made an excellent gay guy.
I have said for a long time that the number of bisexual people must be huge. All of these right-wingers seem to be equally attracted to men and women, so they're obviously bi and choosing to ignore part of their own sexuality.
As I said to my parents when they said something similar:
Not everyone is a 0 or 6 on the Kinsey scale. Plenty of people have some amount of choice. But not everyone is a 3, either. Most people have a preference. And some people are a 0 or 6. Just because one person with “gay temptations” successfully lived as a heterosexual doesn’t mean everyone can. The world is more complicated than that.
Here's the thing, whether or not it's a "lifestyle" shouldn't even enter into the equation. Healthcare workers are supposed to treat everyone the same, regardless of what the patient has done or how they live. If you can't deal with that, don't go into healthcare.
I've even seen it flipped around by the people who invented the term in the first place. "They call it a lifestyle, but that's a euphemism for gross behavior". Well, not those exact words. "Euphemism" has too many syllables for their education level.
Not suddenly, but gradually
They gradually do not choose to be themselves? I don’t understand.
M137 understood what I meant.
I believe that people are born with the same primitive instincts as everyone else, (survive and reproduce) but they gradually begin to develop their own feelings and sense of being. Some natural, some by trauma, etc, overcoming the expectations of your parents being the biggest hurdle.
I'm just simply saying that people aren't born knowing they're a part of that community until they've come to a realization or a spark.
Just my opinion. Just how I observed a family member and his experiences. Sadly, no one accepted him and he's gone now. But I read his journals about how he felt, came to being, etc afterwards. Just wanted to understand.
Very much not true for all. Some realise things over time, but most were born like they are. Some also do choose things, but it's a very small percentage and that in no way makes it any less important to accept and support.
"I refuse to treat left handed people. It's a lifestyle I don't agree with."
This was or maybe even still is a thing. My grandpa was forced to wear a sock on his left hand when learning to write as a child. He would be hit if he didn't.
Human beings were obviously a terrible idea.
In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move.
I still think Jennifer Love Hewitt was a great idea.
Woah...
Forgot about her
Back then he would be hit either way I wish I could go back to being a kid and approach adults discipling me with my current knowledge.
I'd ask for beatings and pretend to get pleasure from them. I bet suddenly you get no more beatings.
Stupid sexy Flanders...
"Is this career path okay with discrimination? Because I have groups I want to die."
It is important to consider both sides on any issue. Thank you for keeping things Fair and Balanced.
/sAs someone who attends a medical school attached to a religious university, I can tell you this is a mindset that exists quite commonly in the medical field. Many of these people get careers in the multitudes of Catholic hospitals that abuse religious freedom laws to deny certain kinds of healthcare and face absolutely no repercussions for their persistent bigotry.
Medical malpractice is a huge issue for LGBT people - especially trans people who require specific care and are therefore much easier to spot. It's honestly a big issue in the sciences in general, and it's definitely not a new issue, but more likely against specific groups. Women are much more likely to have to be their own advocates to get proper care, often being denied pain medication, told that they're just making up their symptoms, or having their agency denied or choice of treatment being deferred to their husbands (generally when it comes to things that might affect sex, such as surgeries to constrict the vagina after giving birth or having their uterus removed due to medical issues).
And it's not just that trans people often have to understand HRT at a doctorate level in order to fight for their right to the proper care and treatment that they deserve. I have read plenty of stories of trans people being denied care by bigoted healthcare workers - even a case of a woman in New York who only found out she had an aggressive form of cancer after the technician who diagnosed her tests called her to ask her how her chemo was going. Her doctor simply never told her the diagnosis and the only reason that she's still alive is because of that technician who made sure that she got proper treatment after the shock of hearing that she didn't even know that she had cancer.
Bias affects medicine all the way up the chain, from how nurses treat you to what gets taught in schools and even what fields get research funding. I taught my therapist pretty much everything he knows about transgender people, for example - because he's older and they didn't teach about trans people. And I have no qualifications in the field other than being trans and therefore having to teach myself to ensure I get proper care. Many doctors don't know about trans specific medical care despite HRT starting to be researched in the 1920s in Germany (and only reappearing at the end of the 20th century after the Nazis burnt all the research). The medical field is taught based on the white body of a specific weight, which leaves out the differences in care that black people and people above or below that weight require. We only really started looking into what exactly female ejaculate is in the past 30 years or so. AIDS research was denied funding by the US government for at least a year while roughly 120 Americans died of AIDS every day, during which time all bottled medication was pulled from stores and the safety seal was developed and implemented over the course of 3 months because somebody poisoned a couple of bottles of Advil with cyanide.
It's not a new issue, but it's become more prevalent in recent years as people like the student above have become emboldened by recent events - like the rulings that say that doctors don't have to treat certain people if it would "violate their religious beliefs."
In many countries it's illegal to refuse treatment so you would literally have to find a new career
But of course in the Christian-sharia-law state of Tennessee, doctors can refuse patients if they don’t fit their values or whatever. A woman was refused prenatal care because she wasn’t married.
This type of stuff is extremely concerning to me. My ability to get life saving medical treatment is based on the whimsy of some superficial judgment some random doctor makes about me? There is no way this can be legal.
Hey now take comfort in the fact that their lives are in the hands of God. Pfft nah it's in the hands of anyone willing to shank them for being a sanctimonious self righteous profligate. Frankly speaking if someone nearly died or dies because of such a scenario where they denied IDK sutures or some shit for religious reasons they wholly deserve to be processed through a morgue incinerator while still alive.
What I always find funny about this is, back when I used to do IT, if I refused to do something for someone who had bible verses on their office wall or a cross necklace I would be the one fired.
I mean, this is correct. You take the oath, you have to live up to it. You will be treating people you don't agree with, and you have to square up with that, or your rep will take a dive.
Oaths are not magic spells. Mengele and ishi were both md's.
To be fair their reps did take a dive.
Ishi was head of the med school at tokyo university after.
And Mengele's skeleton is a teaching tool at the University of São Paulo, cause it's the most ironic thing they came up with.
Somebody at the university must've been a john deere fanboy.
A friend of mine is a devout Muslim from a very conservative family and a doctor: he believes that his faith has no place in his job and therefore treats all his patients equally.
I think fundamentalists of all religions should take a leaf out of his book.
Please give him my gratitude for his level of professionalism. I mean it. We need more people like your doctor friend in the world today.
His faith demands he treat all patients equally:
"whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity" Qur'an 5:32
Nor can he impose his beliefs on others:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion" Qur'an 2:256
Someone being LGBT doesn't mean McDonald's is allowed to refuse them service, or ESSO is allowed to refuse to sell them gas, or a gym can refuse them membership. Why the fuck do you think a doctor should be allowed to refuse them treatment for a disease?
Patience, patience ... the GOP is working on this as well.
Technically they aren't. By their plan, someone who is LGBT couldn't be refused service at McDonalds because they are to be arrested and thrown in jail on sight. Like, how would they have even gotten into McDonalds much less have the gall to ask for a Big Mac?...
Finally someone is doing something.
/s
Doesn't this fall under the Hippocratic oath anyways? Or am I mistaken
The oath is a promise, not a law. People break promises all the time.
If you are POTUS you get to break the law all the time too.
Yes, but it's an ethical promise, so they are saying healthcare professionals have shady ethics.
not mistaken, but certain roles like pharmacists, cashiers, nurses, dentists and lab techs dont take that oath. Many doctors now take alternate oaths too, not the original oath.
The Hippocratic oath doesn't cover this at all and actually explicitly forbids abortion and euthanasia. It's really quite antiquated which is why I wrote an oath for myself that I hold to.
There's a lot of debate about the specific meanings of the text, but there are many Christian physicians that will latch onto those passages as an excuse to apply their own beliefs to patient care. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Interesting
Wasn't there a bakery that won a case allowing them not to sell wedding cakes to gay couples?
No. The supreme court case you're thinking of only ruled that the state commission acted unfairly towards the bakery, not necessarily that the bakery was right or wrong in their discrimination.
Yes..The Colorado Commission ruled against him but the Supreme Court said he didn't have to let them eat cake.
What? They can totally do those things. They are private businesses who can reject whomever they want. Protected classes are only protected for things like housing, employment, and public things (school/utilities/etc.)
If that were true, the US would still have segregated lunch counters, grocery stores, and private buses. The Supreme Court may be getting us on the way there one day, but right now the only way that private businesses are allowed to discriminate against protected classes is to call the output work a "creative expression" like website design, floral arrangement, or cake decoration, and that's from the 303 Creative case.
Besides, how would it make sense if a company could bar you as a customer for being gay, but be compelled to employ you?
Source: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/lgbtq-rights
This would never fly in today's era. Nor should it.
But about two decades ago I dated a gastroenterologist... I think she had around 13 years of schooling.
Anyways, her first day of med school, they made the entire class watch gay porn. Like vicious, graphic, excessively graphic gay porn.
With of course the professor saying if this makes you uncomfortable, you'd best find a new track. Because you ain't going to make it, this is going to be your life: assholes, boils, pus, cancer, shit, piss, if you're going to be a gastroenterologist you're going to have your head up people's asses your whole career....
Etc
And then there were those who got a rock-hard boner and wondered for a completely different reason if this career was for them.
Well, there's always
Wtf 😂
Lol
Apparently this was not boner porn nor wap porn.
By the retelling, its was nailing balls to a step stool kind of porn.
Ah, I remember that one. 96 was a crazy year!
Germans itt be like... vanilla ball-nailing pr0n... yawn
I believe we already have individual states that allow health care providers to refuse care based on their religious beliefs.
So unfortunately, it seems to be flying alright.
Pretty sure they were speaking in reference to the anecdote they were about to relay.
Wonder if there were any jars involved......that would be a pretty unfortunate situation.
Damn straight. Same thing for pharmacists or any other health official.
If medical professionals are punished for refusing to treat patients because of race, then the same goes for refusing to treat someone for "having different lifestyle".
Doctors and nurses see and take care of a lot of disgusting people, or people in disgusting states in all walks of the life. Them being LGBT should be the last hill for them to die on. Only shows how sheltered they have lived.
Some think they know biology sooo well, and that LGBTs are anomalies not worthy of life
That line of thinking also breaks down once you consider that life itself is the OG anomaly, and that the evolution of complex life was fueled by a never ending torrent of anomalies.
Because of their religious beliefs. Someday as a nation we need to reconcile religious freedom with freedom from other peoples religious ideas. We generally just give religious people whatever they want, presumably to shut them up and make them go away-- but that doesnt work.
I have doctors/technicians in the family.
And... WTF.
Do the students know the horrific, gruesome, batshit crazy stuff doctors have to witness and deal with? Not just like objects stuck in orifices, but mentally ill and abusive patients, deathly contagious ones, slow motion tragedy, stuff oozing out of the body you wouldn't believe. Criminal patients, criminal bosses and companies, drama with staff, corporate drama, other fucked up or abusive doctors, drug abuse (from the staff), plenty of sex scandals...
...And their thought is: "Patients that want to rub their genitals on the same sex? Eww. I refuse to deal with that, even professionally."
Wut?
Let's play devil's advocate and say the bigotry is somehow justified (when it's not). Still, how does that even work? Like, an anti-vaxx nurse I know makes at least some sense, by comparison.
Apparently in Tennessee it is now legal for doctors there to simply not treat people they don't agree with their "lifestyle".
Couldn't pay me enough to live in a red state. Might as well move to a third world country for how backwards they all are.
"Woah this guys a millionaire you say? I'm afraid I cant operate on this man due to his choice to be wealthy."
I'm in a red state. All we do is look at the blue states and weekly Whisper "help us"
Excellent. And they can take the pharmacists who have "personal or religious beliefs" and get rid of them too. No one should need to ask some other citizen's personal permission for a service I contracted with my own doctor and medical company.
There are even some drug store cashiers that will refuse to sell condoms. Americans need to learn that if it doesnt affect you personally, its not their place to pretend they are a stakeholder in anyone else's life. Stay in your effing lane, American healthcare workers. No one cares what you dont like or what your personal sky-fairy tells you. Last I heard "freedom of religion" was actually more "freedom from the tyranny of religion" when it was implemented by the nations founders.
While they are at it, Americans should stay out of other peoples bedrooms too. If they arent part of the situation, they don't get a vote. As long as its consensual between two adult humans, its no one elses business what they do in there.
It is sad that this is apparently considered to be impressive or even noteworthy.
I feel like there are a surprisingly large percentage of the population that just take most things at face value. It takes something painfully overt for someone to notice, and it's usually only spotted on something trivial, like fifty thousand five star raving reviews for a beer coozie on amazon.
Astroturfing is real, and if you don't think that a government would do it... Wow you have a lot of history to catch up on.
I actually think you're right
ah yes, i too considered being a doctor so i can feel comfortable in my job. but then i realized when I'm treating a severed limb in an accident trying to stop buckets of blood flowing, that the person might be gay. ew, imagine. so i decided it's not worth it.
I wish this is how it was at my medical school. My med school is attached to a deeply religious university and some of our professors said some pretty wild shit in lectures. I was almost always the one to key up on the mic in recorded lectures to fight them on it.
I'm sad to say there were a couple lectures that I was just too demoralized to fight back directly, but I did talk to my classmates to correct the record after those lectures.
Deeply religious and... Medical School feels like two things that should be separate lol. Wouldn't the solution for Cardiac Ataxia be to pray it away in their eyes?
It is an actual, accredited medical school and we still take the same board exams. The subjects where the religiosity shows the most are the ethics classes, abortion, and LGBTQ+ healthcare. Otherwise, the most prominent manifestation was prayer at the start of lectures and exams.
In the 90s I had two different doctors tell me they would not see me as long as I was sexually active. Things seem better these days but its part of the reason us older gays are loathe to disclose to our doctors.
This culture war nonsense has ruined us. In a humane world a person should be embarrassed and shamed for saying something like 'what if I don't feel comfortable with their lifestyle' - in ANY situation, not to mention a medical one. How about just some basic human decency? What about live and let live? Ideas that we'd all want for ourselves but somehow some of us find it so difficult to afford to others.
And before anyone comes at me with some 'paradox of tolerance' nonsense - no, in the tolerant world I dream of, there is no room for the intolerant. We cannot tolerate the intolerant if we want to live in a tolerant world.
The patients sexual orientation does in fact have no influence on their health. The only groups out of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum where you have some "right to deny" healthcare may be trans and intersex people due to them having special conditions and you might not have the knowledge to treat them accordingly. For the rest you are just batshit stupid if you care that much about what people do in their private time.
that doesn't mean you refuse to treat us though, it just means your treatment might take the form of giving a referral to a specialist. you don't refuse to treat a patient with glasses just cause you aren't an optometrist.
Yeah, that's why I put it in "" to make sure its not really denying it.
Yeah, I’m going to echo the other comment - I don’t think doctors should ever be able to deny trans people healthcare. If it’s something out of their expertise, a referral might make sense. But right now there’s a lot of movement towards denying us healthcare, and I don’t think we should be giving that side any more excuses for their bigotry.
I partly disagree with your reasoning but I agree 100% with your conclusion..
I think that statistically heterosexual women have some significantly different healthcare needs than lesbian women and gay men and straight men also have some statistical differences, but as a healthcare professional you have no right whatsoever to refuse to treat based on those differences.
(I wouldn't count referral to a specialist as a refusal to treat.)
Student: B-but what if I can't stand the sight of blood!?
Republicans: we hereby decree that physicians needing to see blood is part of the woke agenda. Henceforth we will be removing this requirement from all curricula.
Federal Directive 774B-2: In all official documents the word "blood" shall be replaced by "God's life-giving fluid".
Blood is a hoax created by the liberal media.
That would be like if you were in IT and had a phobia of keyboards…. or screens.
Ooh I love this analogy! And LTBT+++ would be "but I don't like users with trackballs instead of a mouse"
It's absurd.
BRB claiming disability
Edit: or I would be back if that didn't blow my cover
Its disgusting that Republicans have tried to push for this cruelty.
Isn't this like a decade old at this point?
Seems it'll remain relevant for another decade, at least, possibly more
And sadly never been more relevant.
I wish memes were properly sourced...
Or move to Tennessee.
They want doctors who hurt the people they don't like.
Tennessee has some of the worst health care rankings and health care outcomes in the country.
When I lived there we had hospitals that were "no-go's". I was looking to get a surgery done, and everyone I worked with told me not to go to $hospital_X, but instead go to $hospital_Y instead.
Now you can just move to Tennessee and practice there, they have a law now protecting doctors who deny care for personal beliefs.
Are they still considered professional doctors if they are willing to do harm to their patients by ignoring the latest scientific research on patient care because it makes them feel icky?
You're a doctor not a judge. Criminals deserve treatment even the worst ones.
Find a different career
Thats seems to be a slippery slope. Unfortunately.
And then everybody clapped.
american centric to even feel the need to ask that question
It's interesting that no one wants to deny medical care for:
I mean, that is sweat and all as something that particular professor thinks, but doctors in the United States don’t have to treat anyone they don’t want to, and we already see them denying prenatal care based on marital status. I’m sure sexual preference are just around the bend.
Citation needed. So far there has been one instance, in Tenessee, where a horrendous law was passed recently to allow that.
That law is a state law. As in, only in Tenessee. Not the whole country.
Things are absolutely shit, amd headed for worse, but let's not spread falsehoods please.
Did they discussed treating an old orange pedophile?
what about uniformed nazis or uniformed zionists?
I am an orderly that was in surgical services and we had a young girl covered in nazi tattoos that came in for surgery. We had to care for her the same as anyone else. Of course we all talked mad shit after that anesthesia kicked in.
I agree there. The talkin shit after is where the “fun” happens. Because yeah. We have to treat but that doesn’t mean we need to not process what we just went through.
"So who can I refuse treatment to?"
"That's the neat part. You don't."
never have refused. never will.
But do u think its important that u retain the right to? Even if you don't intend to use it.
the right to refuse providing life saving service to someone? even if I consider the person no longer a human because they chose to become a nazi?
not an actual right. if you can’t provide it, to everyone, even people who disgust you, you’re in the wrong industry.
Interesting so you would feel obligated to save Hitlers life from an injury that would be fatal without ur intervention?
reductio ad absurdum.
the guy having a heart attack by the mcdonalds with nazi tattoos is a nazi. not the same as literal hitler. still an inhuman piece of shit. still worthless. still required to provide care. not the target of a worldwide multinational military operation requiring millions of russians to take berlin.
I don't think so. If you do not retain the right to refuse service you must save Hitlers life. Given that the logic leads us to this ultimatum u must choose save Hitlers life ur retain the right to refuse service based on personal moral views.
That's a bit much there.
You trying to say something?
k
Look I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this but let's try and be a little nuance about this.
I don't think it is moral to force someone to do something they don't want to do for whatever reason. Eg u shouldn't be allowed to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to completion. Nor should u be forced to help said person end that pregnancy if you don't want to. I think if u don't want to end it you should be forced to give them the contact of someone who will.
If you are going to force someone to medically treat someone for something you don't want to do, u by definition do not believe it is beneficial to them and is thus a violation of ur oath.
The oath is broken before anyone forced anything. Treat people, or find another career because health care is incompatible with this homophobic bullshit.
Depends on the oath. Most say "according to my ability and judgment" which I think would include ones personal moral judgement.
If you become a medical profession, do your job. End of story. Leave your personal crap at the door or get a new job.
If u become a soldier do ur job leave ur personal crap at the door or get a new job. U just justified the actions of the Nazis "I'm just following orders".
You do see how your example is very different, right? Right?
If a soldier doesn't want to commit atrocities, they have a choice. Dishonorable discharge? Better than murder.
If a doctor doesn't want to do certain operations, they have a choice. Get a new profession.
There's always choice.
My argument is that you should have said choice. I simply think you should be allowed to make said choice without retribution. If completely leaving the profession is the only other option then all soldiers will be war criminals and all doctors will be without personal morality.
A soldier's job includes disobeying illegal orders. That's the law. Try again.
Prior to the Nuremberg trials individual responsibility for disobeying unlawful orders was an implicit judgement and not explicitly stated.
And if we look at examples of people using the defence of I was disobeying orders due to them being in violation of international law they got arrested and locked up for the rest of their life (see David McBride).
It's good to know that we have advanced as a society. We're talking about now, not 80 years ago.
You also seem to be under the impression that making a "correct" choice would be without consequences. It would be nice if the moral or legal choice always had positive consequences for the chooser, but that's not always the case. That doesn't chance the morality or legality of the choice. Yes, soldiers have been persecuted for disobeying an illegal order; either legally or socially; but that doesn't change their duty.
(Also, David McBride was arrested for releasing confidential documents, something that is very much illegal. We can debate the morality, but that's not relevant here because it's not remotely related to a soldier refusing to follow illegal orders.)
A soldier following an illegal order may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to not follow illegal orders. A doctor choosing to not treat patients because they don't like something about them may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to treat all patients.
A doctor's agency does not supersede another's right to live. A doctor doesn't get to choose who lives or dies; and yes, even requiring that the doctor refer the patient to a different doctor would result in people dying.
I mean they didn't. "Do your job or do something else" and "I'm just following orders" are worlds apart.
One is expressing the opinion that if a person freely chooses a profession but then refuses to practice it for asinine reasons they should choose a different profession because they are incapable of doing the job correctly.
The other is an excuse Nazi's used to justify the shit they did.
Not the same.
The real problem here is that allowing medical professionals to pick and choose like you describe based on their personal values will lead to people dying. That's the entire reason for the Hippocratic oath, to provide an unbiased framework of ethics under which physicians practice.
Hypothetically, say you're straight, have a one night stand with your preferred gender and get AIDS. You feel sick go to a doctor and they refuse to treat you because AIDS is the "gay" disease and since you have AIDS, you must be gay and this Doctor doesn't "agree with that lifestyle." So you ask for one who does, turns out you're in a Catholic hospital and no one "agrees with that lifestyle" here. Sorry, you're fucked and maybe have to drive a few hours for treatment now because of some judgmental assholes. Or you die from AIDS because you live in America, in a red state, where you have no other options.
That phrase btw? The one about lifestyles? That's a fucking dog whistle.
They are both an appeal to a moral framework higher than themselves.
If I'm a bricklayer I can refuse services for any asinine reason I want that's just liberty, personal autonomy, and free will. Why is any other progression any different.
Yep an excuse of I could not refuse "service" because I was told I had to because i had no liberty to do otherwise. The service of medics is healthcare the service of a soldier is death.
The parallels similar enough to raise real concerns.
Which Hippocratic oath? Cos the original forbids prescribing death, allowing abortion, or c sections, it also says "". The newer one "" still says "". And the only one that does not is the "" which is the only one with explicit statements of neutrality but doesn't really provide much ethical framework beyond that. And yeah people die every day should I be forced to donate all my money to stop that? U have internet and a phone that decision has killed a countable number of people that you could have prevented.
If its a government hospital they cannot refuse service for that reason and must find someone willing to service you because the state services are bound by anti discrimination laws. An individual should have the right to refuse to service an individual if servicing them is against their religion etc. Its the equivalent of forcing a Muslim chef to make pork because if they refuse it could cause harm to the person who wants to eat pork.
The term dog whistle has been so overused to the point it just means something said by people I disagree with. Language is an ever changing thing its simply a set of sounds with an agreed upon meaning. People then attempt to prevent people from conveying particular meaning they do this by restricting the sounds that convey this meaning. So people come up with a new set of sounds that mean they same thing. Hence u have a dig whistle. Winnie the pooh is a dog whistle for fuck Xi Jinping because the CCP banned the original words that means that. A dog whistle is what u get when u censor and silence opinions. A dog whistle is not inherently a bad thing its simply an adaptation to censorship.
To be fair, if you don't want to follow orders without question, you will find being a foot soldier particularly unpleasant.
But your moral equivalence between following orders to kill without question and saving lives and healing people without question is utterly bogus and broken.
I swapped the word for one profession with the word of another. In ancient Greek the word technē often used in philosophical discussion such as this was used for both interchangeably.
Why is it utterly bogus and broken. Ur opinion does not negate mine lest u have an argument to back your claim.
If you can find no moral distinction between being contractually obliged to help someone get well and being contractually obliged to kill people, then I think that not just your logic is broken, but your morals and your humanity. You equated opposites.
When I go to a hospital I really hope the doctor is fully focused on getting me better, not my gender, looks, or whether or not I'd like to suck dick.
what goal does it serve in your opinion?
I mean it is normal to want to discuss anything. I think one of the main problems of today is actually we can't discuss anything for more than five minutes before someone gets lynched. But that is also because there are so many people that "discuss" stuff in bad faith that everyone else has probably lost faith in discussions.
On the issue of hysteria and normalizing stuff, in the span of a six months the US degraded from being the center of many branches of science and tech to a country that redacts its articles to censor words like transmission (because it contains trans, yea) and gender. I don't think you can call it hysteria when it is really happening and has become the new normal.
"you will think it's ridiculous"
I will think what is ridiculous? This event described in the meme? I find it worrying that someone gets so uncomfortable that he or she can't treat a person based on their sexual and or gender orientation. On the other hand everyone has their limits and being a doctor is hard and perhaps it really is not for that person or he or she can't deal with this. And this goes for both sides. You may be very liberally minded doctor but what happens when a wounded person they bring to the hospital turns out to be someone who raped a child? It is fucking brutal. If you can't even make it past sexual orientation, how the fuck are you going to deal with such stuff?