all the news that print will fit.
|
|
| notes from underground - societal whispers all the news that print will fit. |
|
|
Friday, April 23, 2004 np: verbena - "me and yr sister" this song randomly leapt into my head as i was about to saunter out the door this morning. needless to say i immediately turned around and procured my copy for the car ride to school. meanwhile, back at the ranch... things are getting out of hand in michigan. (thanks to atrios for the tip.) the crux of the situation seems to be that, if this law passes, health care workers would be allowed to refuse medical treatment to a patient based on moral, ethical or religious grounds. now, the initial push of this bill was to handle abortion cases. the michigan catholic conference is the group pressing hardest for the passage of this bill. this article sheds a bit more factual light on the case. (although i'm telling you, i'm having one hell of a time finding major newspaper coverage of this debate. it's odd.) this one says: The state House has voted to introduce conscience legislation to protect medical professionals from being fired or sued for failing to participate in procedures they are morally opposed to. The Conscientious Objector Policy Act allows for a period of 24 hours from the time a worker receives notice of a request to perform a procedure in which to object. my initial thoughts center around several things. first off, this case from texas had three pharmacists being fired for refusing to fill a prescription order on 'religious grounds.' (thanks to michael for the tip on this story. it's good to have friends in pharmacy school.) the prescription was for the 'morning-after' pill and the woman trying to receive the prescription was a rape victim. eckerd's (their store) policy on the matter is that pharmacists cannot deny a customer a legally obtained prescription simply because they disagree with the order. so it seems we already have a (societal, not legal) precedent set about how pharmacists can act. second, the primary sponsor of the bill, rep. randy richardville, is quoted in the second linked article as saying: "Nothing in this bill, not a thing, denies a patient from receiving medical care. This simply means a medical professional cannot violate their religious obligations." call me crazy, but i thought the only obligation a medical professional has is the hippocratic oath. (the link is to the modern version written in 1964. read the classical version here.) lastly comes the fear expressed in the first linked article: that doctors who have religious or moral qualms with homosexuality will use that as a reason to refuse non-emergency treatment. (emergency treatment is the one thing that the law states can absolutely not be refused.) one openly gay michigan house member queried the house as to if he would be denied treatment simply because of his sexual preference. and of course, really, what's to stop any doctor of any religious background from refusing to treat anyone out of a 'moral' or 'religious' objection? the extreme possibilities (and even the least ones) are frightening. finally, as always, satire cuts to the heart of an issue the best. and general j.c. christian, patriot gets there faster than anyone. -- and while all this was going on yesterday, one small bit of good news leaked out. this is not a topic i have discussed here at all, but it is something i have personally been tracking. at least some california counties are saying goodbye to diebold. in other words, the touch screen voting machines are out. the fact that the damned things turned away several thousand voters in san diego during the march 2nd primary would be enough reason. but the list of grievances (easily hacked software, no paper voter receipt, etc.) is heavy. so one small step for man and what not. posted by J. Neas | 4/23/2004 08:51:00 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
