When discussing this issue, it must be understood that I am not referring to emergency situations where immediate treatment is of the upmost importance. I am referring to non-emergency situations. A medical professional should know when to use judgment and discretion.
Editorial staffs at times try to gin up Letters to the Editor by proposing certain questions
regarding current events. One such question that has been proposed by a newspaper is along the lines of the above title. The original question was not framed as the above title but the above title is what the issue is essentially about.
The title question can only be answered in two ways, yes or no. Depending upon which answer is given, the results will be as different as yes and no. Usually, people are not consistent enough with a simple yes reasoning or no reasoning. There may be crossovers and thus some inconsistency. When someone answers this question, they will give justifications for their answer. That justification will be based upon a standard. That standard will either be objective or subjective.
We all know that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States grants us the right of freedom of religion. Those who would answer the question in the negative would want freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. There is a vast difference in those two little words of and from. One would say that medical professionals have the right of freedom of religion. The question then becomes, "Where do they have the right to freedom of religion?"
Those in the negative would say that religion is a personal matter. Question, "When a person goes out in public, do they take their religious beliefs with them or are they considered to be non-persons in the public square?"
For those who answer in the negative, are they not imposing their religious beliefs on medical professionals? Are they telling them what they can and what they cannot do and how they should believe? I am not saying that those who answer the question in the affirmative are not biased. They are but lets not play this hypocritical game that those who answer negatively are not biased. By answering the question either in the affirmative or negative means an automatic bias and with each bias a different standard of right and wrong will be employed.
My standard begins with all rights are religious rights. Those in the negative will say that there is a difference in rights. Some are this and some are that depending upon the situation or what is known as situation ethics. Their standard is a subjective one.
Are there not alternate providers who will fill any prescription or perform any medical treatment on anyone? Why force those who do not share the same values as others to perform what is against their conscience? I am sure that those who answer in the negative will scream the loudest when they feel a medical professional would not want to fill a prescription for birth control pills.
What right do patients have to tell medical professionals how to run their business? Is not this an attempt to place their moral values on others?
Those who answer in the negative would say that these patients would be harmed by not treating them or filling a prescription and they will put on the cloak of piety and quote the Hippocratic oath of first do no harm. You would think that they also would be against abortion as this does harm to an innocent baby but no, they will affirm that a woman has a right to choose. Isn’t it hypocritical to affirm a right to pro-choice women and deny a right to a religious medical professional who is affirming their right of being pro-choice in regard to treatment and dispensing medicine?
What this amounts to is two rival religious systems being in conflict with one another. This comes down to Christianity versus secular humanism. Each says that they are the truth, the way, and the life. In a world of no neutrality, it will be a war to the end. Secular humanist deny Christians the ability to discriminate on moral grounds while they are free discriminate against Christians on moral grounds by trying to deny them their rights to make decisions based on moral principles.
While a Christian would affirm the right of these people to seek alternative providers for either treatment or prescription filling, the secular humanist would force these people to go against their conscience. One is tolerant and the other is coercive.
How can you separate what you believe from yourself? Show me one person that is capable of accomplishing this feat. To do that would be to say that we can separate an actor from his actions. When someone goes to a court of law what gets punished the act or the actor?
Discrimination is an inescapable concept. When applying for a job, there are usually many applicants. An employer, generally, discriminates on the basis of ability. The most qualified gets the position. Is this not discrimination?
Medical professionals are not allowed to make moral decisions according to the dictates of their conscience but in forcing them to go against their conscience, they are still having to make a moral decision. In this instance, they are not allowed to make Christian moral decisions, just secular moral ones.
It is a deceptive trick on the part of secularists to add an adjective to rights. The reason for this is plain; it is to be able to discriminate predominately against the faith of Christians. They can have rights as long as they are not religious rights in the public square.
What bothers the secular humanist the most is that Christians are aware of what they are trying to do and they do not like being exposed. They are hollering loudly how Christians are as dangerous as radical Islam. Really, I do not know of any Christians who are going around bombing innocent people and carrying out acts of terror, do you?
When someone cannot win in the arena of ideas, they will seek to get government enforcement of their beliefs. Secular humanists who forever cry for tolerance are the most intolerant when it comes to rights for Christians. They seek to express their views through coercion and force. They will say that these medical professionals have no right to refuse legal treatment or medication to a patient. This would mean, for example, forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense birth control pills and give abortions in opposition to their stated beliefs. Where is the tolerance that we are forever being preached to about in this situation?
This comes from the crowd who call Christians hypocrites and yet fail to check their own mirrors to see their own hypocrisy. Do medical professionals have religious rights? You knew my answer before I even started. My answer was in the way I framed the question. Am I biased? Yes, and so are the secular humanists. I admit mine. Will they admit that they are?
The title question can only be answered in two ways, yes or no. Depending upon which answer is given, the results will be as different as yes and no. Usually, people are not consistent enough with a simple yes reasoning or no reasoning. There may be crossovers and thus some inconsistency. When someone answers this question, they will give justifications for their answer. That justification will be based upon a standard. That standard will either be objective or subjective.
We all know that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States grants us the right of freedom of religion. Those who would answer the question in the negative would want freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. There is a vast difference in those two little words of and from. One would say that medical professionals have the right of freedom of religion. The question then becomes, "Where do they have the right to freedom of religion?"
Those in the negative would say that religion is a personal matter. Question, "When a person goes out in public, do they take their religious beliefs with them or are they considered to be non-persons in the public square?"
For those who answer in the negative, are they not imposing their religious beliefs on medical professionals? Are they telling them what they can and what they cannot do and how they should believe? I am not saying that those who answer the question in the affirmative are not biased. They are but lets not play this hypocritical game that those who answer negatively are not biased. By answering the question either in the affirmative or negative means an automatic bias and with each bias a different standard of right and wrong will be employed.
My standard begins with all rights are religious rights. Those in the negative will say that there is a difference in rights. Some are this and some are that depending upon the situation or what is known as situation ethics. Their standard is a subjective one.
Are there not alternate providers who will fill any prescription or perform any medical treatment on anyone? Why force those who do not share the same values as others to perform what is against their conscience? I am sure that those who answer in the negative will scream the loudest when they feel a medical professional would not want to fill a prescription for birth control pills.
What right do patients have to tell medical professionals how to run their business? Is not this an attempt to place their moral values on others?
Those who answer in the negative would say that these patients would be harmed by not treating them or filling a prescription and they will put on the cloak of piety and quote the Hippocratic oath of first do no harm. You would think that they also would be against abortion as this does harm to an innocent baby but no, they will affirm that a woman has a right to choose. Isn’t it hypocritical to affirm a right to pro-choice women and deny a right to a religious medical professional who is affirming their right of being pro-choice in regard to treatment and dispensing medicine?
What this amounts to is two rival religious systems being in conflict with one another. This comes down to Christianity versus secular humanism. Each says that they are the truth, the way, and the life. In a world of no neutrality, it will be a war to the end. Secular humanist deny Christians the ability to discriminate on moral grounds while they are free discriminate against Christians on moral grounds by trying to deny them their rights to make decisions based on moral principles.
While a Christian would affirm the right of these people to seek alternative providers for either treatment or prescription filling, the secular humanist would force these people to go against their conscience. One is tolerant and the other is coercive.
How can you separate what you believe from yourself? Show me one person that is capable of accomplishing this feat. To do that would be to say that we can separate an actor from his actions. When someone goes to a court of law what gets punished the act or the actor?
Discrimination is an inescapable concept. When applying for a job, there are usually many applicants. An employer, generally, discriminates on the basis of ability. The most qualified gets the position. Is this not discrimination?
Medical professionals are not allowed to make moral decisions according to the dictates of their conscience but in forcing them to go against their conscience, they are still having to make a moral decision. In this instance, they are not allowed to make Christian moral decisions, just secular moral ones.
It is a deceptive trick on the part of secularists to add an adjective to rights. The reason for this is plain; it is to be able to discriminate predominately against the faith of Christians. They can have rights as long as they are not religious rights in the public square.
What bothers the secular humanist the most is that Christians are aware of what they are trying to do and they do not like being exposed. They are hollering loudly how Christians are as dangerous as radical Islam. Really, I do not know of any Christians who are going around bombing innocent people and carrying out acts of terror, do you?
When someone cannot win in the arena of ideas, they will seek to get government enforcement of their beliefs. Secular humanists who forever cry for tolerance are the most intolerant when it comes to rights for Christians. They seek to express their views through coercion and force. They will say that these medical professionals have no right to refuse legal treatment or medication to a patient. This would mean, for example, forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense birth control pills and give abortions in opposition to their stated beliefs. Where is the tolerance that we are forever being preached to about in this situation?
This comes from the crowd who call Christians hypocrites and yet fail to check their own mirrors to see their own hypocrisy. Do medical professionals have religious rights? You knew my answer before I even started. My answer was in the way I framed the question. Am I biased? Yes, and so are the secular humanists. I admit mine. Will they admit that they are?
