| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
gone ![]() Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
|
Answer for me then, If I'm not given the RIGHT to say no, doesn't that automatically mean my answer must be yes?
Maybe if you go about your life rigidly following Aristotelian logic then I could see how you might assume that. I don't think the right to say no is in question, it already exists, the point of the bills is to protect certain people from the consequences of saying no. Quote: Plenty, to physically force them to do it would be assault (at least it is here in the UK). They wouldn't have the right to say no, and any answer other than "yes" would be construed as further discriminatory action and they would be punished for doing so. They already have the right to say no, it existed before this legislation, it exists now in other states outside of Michigan. They may open themselves to to certain actions (disciplinary etc...) by doing so however. Does this mean that they would technically be "forced" to do it, not in the sense that a policeman would hold a gun to their head. That's my point, they aren't 'FORCED' (I've seen you capitalise that for emphasis) to do something against their will, any more than you can force me to kill someone by telling me to. But it would be a "Pay a huge lawsuit and lose your practise, or do the procedure" thing. It might not be the definition of force that you were thinking of, but it still is apt. It's not force though, despite your repeated assertions that it is. If a hospital wants to find a doctor in breach of contract or go through disciplinary procedures because they won't treat gays (for example), I'm fine with that, it's not forcing them to to go against their morals. I have strong feelings about piss tests, and it's possible that I'll be up for one later in the year. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I might lose my job as a result of my refusal to take the test, because I feel so strongly on the issue. They can't force me to take the test short of assaulting me. Quote: It's quite simple, these bills are new, and they only apply to Michigan. Therefore it's fairly safe to assume that before 2004, Michigan and the rest of the US didn't have these bills. If doctors are 'forced' to treat people against their will without these bills as you claim, then it would stand to reason that we'd have at least few instances of this happening. So far you haven't provided a single real example that backs up your assertions outside of abstract concepts. Quote: As I've already said, take a look at bill 5006, it protects the worker against disciplinary action. The hospital couldn't fire that person if they wanted to. If it's a government funded hospital, I don't htink that any particular doctor should have his right to say "no" taken away, but punishments other than legal ones should be applied. You're one of the only people I've seen who is claiming that the right to say no is being taken away. Quote: I think I've already made myself clear on this, the right to say no isn't the issue, it already exists and I support it. but at the cost of, say, a 10,000,000$ lawsuit carried out with the support of pro<insert here> teams, such as the NAACP or GLAD with near unlimited funds. Nice to see how you treat the working man. I notice that you take yet another extreme example. How about disciplinary procedures? These bills protect people from those too. If the reason for such an expensive lawsuit in your example is that the lack of treatment caused bodily harm to the denied patient, then why shouldn't they sue? It depends on the context and specifics of the case, I doubt a judge would award a person 10 mil purely because they had to drive 300 miles to another hospital. Quote: Actually I can't as I'm in the UK (and bills like these would get shot down in flames anyway). I can however point out these laws to other people, say on a message board. Quote: I noticed that you omitted the part of my post where I pointed out that disciplinary action is covered by these bills. I'll paste it again: The bill would: ? Specify that a provider?s objection could not be the basis for civil liability, criminal action, administrative or licensure action, or termination of employment or refusal of staff privileges at a health facility. Let me give you a "for example" to show what I think; A man walks into the Emergency Room of his local hospital. This hospital is funded through tax dollars and grants made available to health care insitutions. This man is a total "flamer", a very blatant and obvious homosexual. He wants to have his ears examined, as they are painful. Doctor Cleatus P Klansman says "Well gawrsh shit, I ain't dealin with no fudgepacking faggot, fuck you", when the patient enters his room. Another doctor at the hospital with more sense deals with the patient and heals him right up. In this instance, the hospital could either fire the redneck bigot or they could give him a stern warning. The patient, however, would not have any legal right to sue the doctor. It's just the doctors choice if he wants to say "no". Thats just how it should be. He should be required to answer to the man that signs his paycheck, but not in court. If you allow this, it will set a very bad precedent. Your thoughts on situation? You mention that this would set a precedent, but this bill only applies to Michigan. I've yet to see any real instances of such a precedent being set in any of the other states where bills like this don't exist. What if the man with ear-ache has to wait for hours while another doctor is freed up to look at him? Should he have to sit through possibly unnecessary pain just because he's gay? Should the other doctors be expected to take on the extra workload just because one guy won't treat gays? What if it's an infection that then causes major damage and wasn't caught in time because the original doctor wouldn't examine the patient? I think he'd have a pretty good reason to bring a lawsuit. Quote: I think you're making assumptions again. You can't know what the result of a lawsuit or disciplinary procedure will be, so your choices are artificially restricted. There are many other possible outcomes, but you are again only using 'either/or' choices. Quote: Repeating that ad-nauseum doesn't make it any more true. Who other than you is saying that not having these bills takes away a man's right to say no? Does that mean that doctors outside of Michigan don't have this right? I've seen no examples of this from you so far other than your abstract deductions. Quote: Can you prove that the oath was changed by 'liberal' university doctors? A source for that info would be nice. You still haven't addressed my point about the 'spirit' of the oath, for example: Relevant lines from 'Old' Oath: Quote: Relevant parts from the 'new' oath: Quote: Regardless of the changes made (medicine has changed over 2000 years), I can still see an underlying current about helping sick human beings. Sound like the pigs and the horses? Why compare it to a book about communism of all things? Are you trying to imply something? Quote: Are you being deliberately obtuse? I didn't say that at all, I'll post what I said again: It is [being used against them] if it's used as the basis of a decision not to treat them Quote: How so? You yourself admitted that these bills allow discrimination towards gays. Can you show where the authors lied? Quote: You keep going back to private facilities and workers at every opportunity. Your claim was that it was not legally wrong for a doctor at a public hospital to refuse to treat someone, I pointed out that this wouldn't be the case if the civil rights laws were breached. Quote: There you go again with the extreme and irrelevant examples. How does killing people with an Uzi relate in any shape or form to doctors treating people? People have the right to freedom of speech and yet people can still be sued or prosecuted for using it. -------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: The only way to do that is to force others to say yes. You can't have it both ways. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
gone ![]() Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
|
So how are they forced? Where are the doctors all over the US being forced to treat people they don't want to?
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Loss of license, fines.
Quite a few states prohibit denial of medical care. This bill is a step in the right direction. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 04/14/04 Posts: 399 Last seen: 19 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Explain to me some other "Rights" that exist that have consequences for following them. It would seem to me that if you have the "right" to do something, but then get punished for it, it's not really a right. So, name other "rights" that people have that result in punishment. Quote: I think your ignorance of the word "right" is the root of some of the problems. The word right, in itself, means that you aren't punished for it. That would be like Hitler saying "Sure, you have the RIGHT to be Jewish in my country. Of course, we'll gas you". It isn't a right when punishments are applied for using it. Does that really escape you? Are you that daft? Quote: Ok. Lets say that I take your wife and children hostage and put a gun to their head. Unless you do a certain action, i'll kill your family. Do you think you are being "forced" to do that action? Your pathetic attempt at semantically arguing your way out of this isn't going to work. Quote: You just want to punish them for doing so. Just like other right, like, say the right to free speech. "Sure Mr Journalist, you can write a story critical of the administration, you have that right. Of course, we'll then tie you up and stick a hot poker up your ass while we kill your family". Again, webster might help you with your lack of comprehension of the word "right". Quote: how many friggin people have kept up with this? two. me and you. What about B_H's comments? Quote: Way to go totally ignoring the point. Maybe you could explain how precent has to be done on a national level, rather than on a state level. OF course, you can't because that isn't how it really is, but why let "facts" and "Reality"g et in the way of your opinion, Quote: you are a fool. I'm done with this. Look up the word "right" and "Ability" and you should, if you had any grey matter, see the difference. Refer to the Hitler/Jews example if more help is needed. Quote: No of course not, the wall always said that pigs didn't have to do the work. How dare you question it? Quote: *sigh* Did you notice how the "constitution" that the animals wrote seemed to change to suit the needs of one party? Did you notice how the hippocratic oath changed to remove that part about abortions? If so, welcome to "Obvious 101". You just got your credits. Quote: You are a fool. I am done with you.
| |||||||
|
gone ![]() Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
|
Whatever, let me know when you can go more than 5 replies without name-calling. I'm done with this board for a while.
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 04/14/04 Posts: 399 Last seen: 19 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: *waves*
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
9/11 Allowed to Happen? ( |
2,281 | 34 | 09/07/03 06:48 PM by Baby_Hitler | ||
![]() |
What will happen to the economy when robots take over? ( |
2,340 | 25 | 09/01/03 12:49 PM by z@z.com | ||
![]() |
No Gods (pt. 1) | 1,059 | 7 | 04/11/02 06:58 PM by Buddha | ||
![]() |
We Need the State? Otherwise, Something Bad Might Happen! ( |
7,152 | 141 | 05/24/04 12:12 AM by shamantra | ||
![]() |
Help. Hooked on driving my SUV. Need treatment immediately | 477 | 6 | 06/01/04 12:36 PM by Seuss | ||
![]() |
House Bans Coloning of Human Cells ( |
4,077 | 21 | 08/04/01 09:36 AM by Phred | ||
![]() |
gitmo detainees can challenge their treatment in US courts | 479 | 5 | 06/28/04 10:54 PM by Swami | ||
![]() |
What Ever Happened To Peace On Earth | 435 | 1 | 01/03/04 11:35 AM by Anonymous |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 4,672 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



