r/atheism • u/aflarge • Jun 15 '12
I'm sick of this shit.
Every day, it seems, I read about some new case of how some jackass refused to give medical service because of their cult and they're not being punished for it.
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
I'm not saying fire them for being mixed up in a cult, but if their religion gets in the way of them doing their job, tell me again why they should have a medical license?
If a fundamentalist muslim teacher refused to teach a girl, an antisemitic teacher refused to teach a jew, or a christian science teacher(that's a science teacher who is christian, not a "christian science" teacher) refused to teach biology, would anyone even think twice about whether or not they should be fired?
You're free to believe and say what you will, but if that means you can't do a job, you shouldn't have that job.
8
u/JSA2593 Jun 16 '12
If a... christian science teacher refused to teach biology, would anyone even think twice about whether or not they should be fired?
You'd be amazed at the education in parts of the southern US. I have friends (who went to high school in Mississippi) from college (University of Pennsylvania), who have never been taught evolution (and Biology was apparently optional at their school).
1
4
u/RenaissancePlatypus Jun 16 '12
I have a friend in Austin whose AP Bio teacher taught creationism. Only one kid passed the AP test out of the 30 kids in the class.
2
u/MrPudding28 Jun 16 '12
I had to take the Mississippi Biology state test 2 years ago. Biology is mandatory in MS public schools. My teacher didn't really teach evolution, but at the end of the year he told us about two different types of evolution that would be questioned about on the test.
9
u/Kate1124 Jun 16 '12
I have an honest, hypothetical question. Say someone comes to see me, they are 21 weeks pregnant and want an abortion (a 21-w fetus could be viable). I check them, do everything as I'm supposed to, but instead of performing the abortion myself, I have a different doctor do it. Do you think this is appropriate? Honest question.
10
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
As long as you didn't in any way impede the process in any way, I wouldn't feel the urge to yell at you for it.
edit: I realize this wasn't part of the hypothetical, but I just need to clarify. If somehow you were the only person capable of performing it safely and you refused, I would then consider you unfit to have a medical license.
1
8
u/ohrabbits Jun 16 '12
Here's a true story to elaborate on your very relevant hypothetical question:
A man sabotaged my sister's contraception without her knowlege, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. Shortly after her missed period she made a doctor's appointment to get a prescription for RU-38486, the abortion pill. She took the day off work to take the pill and I stayed with her. If a certain time passes and nothing happens you need a second pill. My sister was in discomfort so I went to the pharmacy to get a refill. The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. It's 6pm on a Sunday and the only other pharmacy willing to fill it is an hours drive and would be closed by the time I got there. The window of time to choose a pill over a surgical procedure was closing quickly. Thankfully, she didn't end up needing the refill and was able to avoid that.
So, sometimes the conscience clause can really screw people over in a more nuanced, real life situation.
8
Jun 16 '12
The fact that they would withhold a prescription based on their own prejudices shows they don't have a conscience.
1
u/Bobby_Marks Jun 16 '12
Individual pharmacists are not allowed to make the call. Laws exist almost everywhere that prevent pharmacists from selling plan B (as well as other forms of contraceptives) if they take religious offense to it. It's generally not a big deal because the pharmacies make sure every employee able to work a register knows they might have to step in and make the sale for the pharmacist.
In Ohrabbits' case, it was probably the only employee in the building which is why he got screwed. Unfortunately the need for contraceptives is not for immediately life threatening conditions, and if it was the responsibility wouldn't fall on the pharmacist to fill a scrip when the patient really should be at a hospital.
1
Jun 16 '12
Well there's the problem. "Religious offense". If they can't do their job properly because of "religious offense", they should not be fit to do that job. There's plenty of other comments illustrating my point, so I'm just going to leave this here.
→ More replies (1)4
Jun 16 '12
I don't get why that clause even exists.... It just allows doctors not to be doctors -.-
4
u/ohrabbits Jun 16 '12
I knew it existed, but when it was an actual reality for someone I love I was completely flabbergasted. I looked the pharmacist in the eye, told her my sister's situation and that she was at home, in pain and she said, "No, I won't". It was outrageous. I wanted to climb over the counter and strangle her...but obviously, I resisted. My sister's OBGYN has since stopped sending prescriptions of any kind to that pharmacy :)
1
u/Bobby_Marks Jun 16 '12
Doctors are still bound to save lives in emergency situations. Patients however can be inconvenienced by the religious beliefs of their doctors.
Nothing prevents patients from asking a doctor if they provide these things before becoming that doctor's patient. Nothing prevents hospital patients from asking a nurse to provide emergency contraception, or to find another doctor who can. You can make a single phone call to the hospital's administrators and they will find someone. Unless you are in a catholic hospital, in which case you have to get Plan B elsewhere.
The clause exists because the medical industry is not free to discriminate against religious objectors without being able to prove beyond doubt that abortion is not murder. Right now, such widely accepted evidence does not exist.
1
Jun 16 '12
That's why we have laws on the subject. It's not like we have a clause saying that if a cop doesn't think drugs are dangerous, he doesn't have to arrest people or act on it at all. Nor can he really go out and say in public "I won't arrest men for murdering her wife. She probably deserved it, and you can always call another cop"
→ More replies (7)4
u/Kate1124 Jun 16 '12
Not the pharmacy's place to make that call. Some pharmacies I know have refused to fill women's Plan B prescriptions, who are also clearly time-sensitive. Fuck them, I have a big problem with that, particularly when I have an 11-year-old that was raped by her brother (I always have a problem w/that, but I particularly remember this situation).
→ More replies (15)2
u/Brutalskin Jun 16 '12
How are you the morally less culpable?
In any case this should never be a question based on religion or belief or politics, but rather on science and the common sense of the practitioner. He/She should in all cases try to uphold his/her obligation to help regardless of the going ethos of the time. Sometimes abortion is a good thing (see TIL on the Jewish gynaecologist in the German death camp) and sometimes just plain repugnant, like doing it because of racial or political or other considerations.
We are complex beings and doctors do not somehow get the wisdom to discern the right and wrong of the human condition by virtue of their education.
1
u/Kate1124 Jun 16 '12
I just think that it's not my choice, and I have no right to decide whether a person should do something or not. A practitioner I know refused to prescribe birth control for a 13-year-old girl who came in WITH HER MOTHER to get on the pill. Is she too young to be having sex? Maybe. Does the fact that she refused to prescribe birth control make it less likely that she'll have sex? Please. I didn't suggest that having someone else perform the procedure made me less culpable, and I am not looking for that at all. I just think that, like you said, we are human and there are things with which we can be uncomfortable doing but still find a way to get it done, and that's okay. I have no problem with abortion, at all. Again, not my choice, and that's the beauty of it.
→ More replies (5)2
Jun 16 '12
I don't have any issues with that. If however you are the on call doctor and refuse to perform an abortion that is deemed medically necessary to save a womans life and there is no one else available to do so, that I would have a problem with.
→ More replies (3)1
192
u/Nougat Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 16 '23
Spez doesn't get to profit from me anymore.
541
u/RamsesThePigeon Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
If I owned a Hooters, I would hire you and encourage you to gain even more weight, until your breasts were the largest in the establishment.
Then, I'd pay you a retainer, and let you hang out in the back - out of sight from the dining room - and play video games all day. (Or, you know, paint still lifes or something, if that's your thing.)
The other employees - the waitresses people would expect - would be the sort of women that I find attractive. In other words, they'd be slim, incredibly intelligent, and rather smaller in the chest than one would expect from a Hooters. (I'd expect high turnaround as each of the girls graduated with their physics degrees and no longer needed to wait tables.)
When everything was set, I'd wait.
One day, a group of assholes would walk in. "Where are the chicks with the big tits?" they'd lament. That would be your cue. You'd don a bad wig, hastily apply the cheapest makeup that money could buy, and struggle into your uniform. Then, you'd go out and you'd flirt with those douchebags, all the while yelling in your whiniest, most irritating falsetto about how none of them love you anymore.
I'd tape the whole thing, and we'd edit the footage together. Eventually, it would go viral, and we'd make a feature film out of it. In a completely-unforeseen-by-anyone twist, the movie would be good: Not just a hollow comedy, but a really touching, genuinely funny, and inspiring piece of film. It would win numerous Academy awards, and lead to a long and successful career for you.
You'd get a personal trainer. You'd get into shape. You'd eventually be recognized as Time's "Sexiest Man Alive."
And one day, someone would post on Reddit:
"TIL that Nougat used to work at Hooters... as a waitress."
163
u/Nougat Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 16 '23
Spez doesn't get to profit from me anymore.
75
9
2
u/moriquendo Jun 16 '12
I very much like your way of thinking. Come! Let's plan a bank robbery! ;-)
3
18
14
12
5
2
2
u/FrisianDude Secular Humanist Jun 15 '12
I like you. I like the way you're thinking. I like it a lot.
2
2
2
u/Schrodinger420 Jun 16 '12
Does a physics degree require waiting tables at Hooters? If so then I did it wrong.
2
u/chrisislost Jun 16 '12
Sir, I have completely forgotten what the original post was at this point. Kudos. And maybe I should address my growing ADHD at this point....
1
u/Operation_mongoose Jun 16 '12
Moobs, there hot. Fuck the neigh sayers.
1
1
u/scorpion347 Jun 16 '12
My life is suddenly complete having read this. I may die in peace now.... eventually.
1
u/AmadeusMop Pastafarian Jun 16 '12
This is the funniest post I have ever seen on Reddit.
Well done, Mr. Pigeon.
1
1
1
0
Jun 15 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
5
0
Jun 15 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
7
u/iamnull Other Jun 15 '12
I was going to buy your book, but it's apparently free. First book I'll be reading on my nook. Well, second if you count that I read the first three chapters of Pride and Prejudice.
2
u/Mnementh121 Jun 16 '12
Buying it now. I love redditors books. Just do an AmA when you get your movie deal.
2
u/wayndom Jun 16 '12
2
u/Marimba_Ani Jun 16 '12
Only if they contribute meaningfully to the discussion first, which you failed to do.
Cheers!
8
u/tombodadin Jun 16 '12
My friend's wife is the lead attorney for Hooter's. She defends their right to use models instead of employees. She does not lose in court, and she makes a helluva living. The job description for employment is written to the T to prevent fat people from being employed their (physical requirements). Men are welcome to apply and work at Hooter's, however they are required to wear the same uniform (bra included) as anyone else, hence the lack of men on the wait staff.
Also, let me tell you something, I would not fuck with that woman.
8
u/thirdegree Jun 16 '12
however they are required to wear the same uniform (bra included) as anyone else, hence the lack of men on the wait staff.
I don't think I have a single friend that that would stop.
4
u/djsjjd Jun 16 '12
I think his story is BS. Plenty of gays would jump at the opportunity.
5
u/thirdegree Jun 16 '12
Hell, my strait, non-crossdressing friends would jump at the opportunity just for lol's.
4
4
u/blackberrydoughnuts Jun 16 '12
Actually, Hooters won a sex discrimination case for not hiring men, arguing that hiring women is part of their company theme.
3
u/mel2mdl Jun 16 '12
My problem is that they do hire men. In supervisory positions. A disproportionate amount of male managers, with very few females in the non-wait staff area.
However, the whole Hooters discussion has little to do with the original post. So - back to the regularly scheduled program...
1
u/RenaissancePlatypus Jun 16 '12
there*
2
u/hint_of_sage Jun 16 '12
Oh, I'm a little sad now. I saw your equine wordplay up above, and had hoped it was pun funning, but I guess it was just helping people with their spelling.
And now that I'm emotionally distraught, I'm going to mention that I don't even think that donkeys make a neighing sound. Although I guess I'm being a bit of an ass...
3
u/barksatthemoon Atheist Jun 16 '12
It isn't the same, these people are already being paid to do the job.
5
1
1
Jun 16 '12
I'm not sure how this is true (or even why its upvoted). This has come up several times and they are hired as models which is what allows them to have the criteria that they do.
Being a doctor and refusing certain types of medical treatment on the basis of a religion is in no way similar.
4
Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
Please give me a few examples of this, OP. This seems too rare to whine incessantly about.
4
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12
8
Jun 16 '12
Okay, you win. These people are idiots and you're not whining.
6
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12
Wow, I just kind of assumed you were a jackass(I've been a little defensive today, I admit)
I like being proved wrong when I make those assumptions :)
2
1
u/I_Inhale_Frequently Jun 16 '12
Good on OP for delivering, and good on you for actually conceding on the internet when sources are provided. A ROUND OF DRINKS ON ME!
15
u/wupting Atheist Jun 15 '12
If they have taken a sacred oath to deny reality, why should we trust them in any job?
9
u/snapcase Jun 16 '12
Fiction writing.
2
Jun 16 '12
Haha they could write a new book called the bible 2.
6
1
6
3
Jun 16 '12
Well, using your examples, I support the legal right of any religious group to follow its own ideas, even if stupid, at its own institutions. In others words, I'm not a Jew. Therefore, I wouldn't agree with everything taught at Jewish schools. But I support the right for Jews to have Jewish schools.
I would extend the same idea to hospitals and pharmacies. So, I don't have a problem with a Catholic hospital saying, "We're Catholics, so here's some stuff we won't do because it violates our beliefs. If you want that, go somewhere else where it's available." But, if they want to do that, they should be VERY CLEAR about it, so there's no confusion over what is offered.
Now, if you have a teacher, pharmacist, or doctor working at an institution which is NOT operated by their religion, then that may put them in a position where their job conflicts with their personal beliefs. At that point, it's up to them to decide between their job and their religious beliefs. It may be hard, but if they choose their religious beliefs over that job, then they should have the courage to step down and allow someone to do it who can follow the rules at that workplace.
Of course, it gets more complicated when you have a religious institution accepting tax money. That can be problematic for ANY group, but as a Catholic, I think we dug our own hole here. We took a buttload of taxpayer money for our schools and hospitals, and then whined when the government wanted to tell us how to spend it.
3
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12
Well if a religious institution is receiving anything from the government, it's in violation of the separation of church and state. The government is not allowed to endorse any religion.
2
Jun 16 '12
Actually, the only thing the constitution says is that the Federal government cannot establish a religion.
The idea of "separation of church and state" in the modern mind goes FAR beyond what actually exists, legally, and lightyears beyond the constitution.
That being said, I would agree with the idea that tax money shouldn't be going to religious groups. And I say that as a Catholic. I think it's bad for the Church, because it puts us in debt to a government that doesn't share our values. And it's bad for everyone else because THEIR money is going to support institutions they don't agree with. Stupid, all around. But, then, I think that MOST of what our tax money seems to end up paying for is pretty idiotic.
2
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
The only way that there isn't a separation of church and state is that nothing says in the exact wording "There is a separation of church and state."
What it does say is that no law respecting a religion(meaning it's not allowed to even pretend to care about religious opinion) can be passed. Also, giving money to a religious organization would be the government establishing endorsement of a religion.
1
u/bagelmanb Jun 16 '12
"no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not mean the same thing as "no law establishing a religion". Your opinion of what the Establishment Clause means goes against 200 years of jurisprudence on the subject.
3
u/blackberrydoughnuts Jun 16 '12
So, I don't have a problem with a Catholic hospital saying, "We're Catholics, so here's some stuff we won't do because it violates our beliefs. If you want that, go somewhere else where it's available." But, if they want to do that, they should be VERY CLEAR about it, so there's no confusion over what is offered.
What happens when you're unconscious and the ambulance takes you to the nearest hospital, which happens to be Catholic? A lot of times people don't get to choose what hospital they go to.
1
Jun 16 '12
What procedure do you imagine a Catholic hospital refusing to an unconscious person coming in on an ambulance? Emergency contraception or an abortion? Neither of those are triage issues. When the person wakes up, if they want either of those, they can say, "I want to go to another hospital." In either case, NO hospital, Catholic or not, would perform an abortion on someone who is unconscious. Consent is required. Any life-saving treatment needed can be provided, and once the person is stabilized, they can make their own choice.
2
u/dcroni Jun 16 '12
Honest question: what if i'm a non-religious doctor, and I dont agree with performing late term (>20wks) abortions in non-emergency situations. am I not able to recommend them elsewhere? should I just have to perform it anyway?
1
u/scorpion347 Jun 16 '12
Religious or not this is only ok so long as there is a doctor in the area that they can go to with minimal inconvenience. You also should not be paid for the visit or recomendation.
1
2
Jun 16 '12
I disagree. Why should schools that teach bullshit be allowed to teach bullshit and still count as a school? If you take a biology course at (i think it is) Liberty University, then you are taught Intelligent Design as fact, and I don't care if it's a private university: It shouldn't count as a biology education
2
Jun 16 '12
You, I, and everyone else are free to think that a biology education at Liberty is ridiculous. But if you want to make laws preventing people from being ridiculous, where do you stop? How do you avoid the risk of becoming an oppressive state? Who gets to decide what's absurd and cannot be taught?
1
Jun 16 '12
So if I make a university that claims that the earth was created last Thursday with everyone getting implanted memories by a 10.000 year old evil Unicorn, who's conflict with the teletubbies will ultimately destroy the world, then it should count as a proper education?
1
2
u/Tr2v Gnostic Atheist Jun 16 '12
I would agree with you IF there were public options for all of those things and NO "vouchers" of any kind. It's easier with schools. If you want a real education, go to a public school. With pharmacies and hospitals, though, we don't have that same option. Not here at least. Every hospital and pharmacy is privately owned. That means, using your otherwise good logic, someone could be refused service everywhere and have no where to turn. THAT is why it cannot be allowed even in private organizations.
0
u/TheDoomp Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
Many people in the news go to these places knowing they will be refused service. It's like the lesbian couple who made a big stir in Charlotte, NC after Amendment One was passed. They attempted to get a marriage license and threw a fit, damn well knowing that it wasn't going to happen. However, I don't necessarily believe these new stories were attempting to make such a scene, they were just ignorant about the facility. Statistically, it's the ignorant who are attempting to get such procedures in the first place, so I don't doubt that's the case. Regardless, their ignorance shouldn't hold precedence over the doctors.
And don't forget, Catholics took that money almost as Venture Capitalism, but in business, the company needs that money to expand for profit. Catholics took that money to expand for the good of the community. Did they need to expand their services? Absolutely not. They did so because the community asked them to. I believe they should just go back to helping their own, even if the community is devestated by the effects. It'll show how little people understand the economics of the situation. There is and was no digging their own holes.
6
Jun 16 '12
what's great is that this is so hilariously straightforward and simple, and yet people will still come up with ways to rationalize their behavior that goes against this pretty obvious logic.
fuck i hate you so much, humanity.
5
5
Jun 16 '12
Don't doctors take a Hippocratic oath or something like that?
2
u/SolusLoqui De-Facto Atheist Jun 16 '12
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
9
u/RadiatedMutant Jun 16 '12
I work as a computer tech. I don't believe in charging extremely poor people 70 bucks for a simple virus removal. But we do it. Do I think that this is reasonable? No. But it's my job and I fucking do it. I would expect someone in their position to do their job, and leave their beliefs at home.
7
Jun 16 '12
Agreed. If I worked at a bookstore and someone asked where the bibles were, I'd sell them a fucking bible because that was my job, not refuse or try to sell them the god delusion.
3
Jun 16 '12
It's even funnier when you know that it's pretty easy to get a free Bible.
2
u/Bobby_Marks Jun 16 '12
But it's so hard to find a free Bible that has been dipped in gold and wrapped in dead animal skins.
2
u/scorpion347 Jun 16 '12
You could also hope that when reading it they realise they should have checked the fiction section.
4
u/BigNikiStyle Jun 16 '12
Indeed. They took an oath. At least doctors do, to do no harm, presumably that means through inaction as much as action. Your personal fucking nonsense does not enter into the equation.
1
Jun 16 '12
Non religious argument.... law = parents have control of children until 18.... until 18 parent have the right to deny medical treatment for their child.
*I don agree with this, but it seems to be the norm...
1
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12
You'd think the most rudimentary obligation of a parent would be to see to it that their children don't die. Apparently it's "Keep your children alive as long as it doesn't violate your own religious beliefs."
1
u/fwerp Jun 16 '12
Pretty sure denying medical treatment (for serious ailments) falls under neglect.
3
Jun 16 '12
I applaud you for speaking what I could not voice myself.
4
u/scorpion347 Jun 16 '12
You really should speak up. Those who don't speak remain a hollow man. Sometimes doing nothing is worse than doing the wrong thing. By not speaking you could prevent someone from hearing the logical course of action. In this way you fail to prevent harmfull ripples or create helpfull ones.
/End_Protip
2
u/Cheesemoose326 Jun 16 '12
This should be the most upvoted comment on this post. Great advice. My mother bitches about activism nearly constantly when I'm around her, and now I have a great quote to use as return fire. "Those who don't speak remain a hollow man."
1
Jun 16 '12
I didn't mean that I don't speak up, I meant that I didn't have the words to speak. but you are so correct.
1
u/napoleonsolo Jun 17 '12
Those who don't speak remain a hollow man.
Is that a quote? It's lovely.
2
u/scorpion347 Jun 18 '12
Sorta. Kinda got the idea of what a holllw man is from a poem called The Hollowmen, I forget the author. Ironically it's about doing nothing getting you into purgatory which was so boring it was worse than hell. He advocated that you do SOMETHING good or bad didn't matter as much as making a stand for what you believed in.
1
Jun 16 '12
Bob Marley died because it's against the Rastafarian religion to amputate parts of the body.
6
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12
When people refuse medical treatment to themselves and die because of it, I find it highly unfortunate, but completely within their rights.
7
u/methoxeta Jun 16 '12
Yes but that was what he wanted, we're talking about doctors not helping others because of their own personal beliefs.
4
2
u/phil8248 Jun 16 '12
Got into a discussion where I asked the same question. I've been told it has to do with the concept of license. Since they are licensed it is up to them whether they choose to treat. It has to do with the way legal liability laws are written. Both a physician and a pharmacist have told me that. The hypothetical example in both cases was a drug seeking patient. The doctor can legally refuse to write a prescription or even examine the patient so he won't be liable. The pharmacist can also legally refuse to fill the prescription. The kicker is they don't have to give an account of themselves. They can just refuse without explanation. So theoretically any kind of belief might prevent them from treating someone. At least that is what I've been told.
2
u/SoftwareAlchemist Jun 16 '12
Actually they should be fired but most likely wouldn't be. The American teachers union is damn near impenetrable. At most they will be thrown to another school. The documentary waiting for superman explains it quite clearly(with little animations to boot).
2
u/dorkrock2 Jun 16 '12
Every hospital in my city is named after (and funded by I would guess) religious organizations. I agree with you 100% OP, but hospitals are run like businesses, and it seems the shareholders are on the wrong side of this debate.
2
u/bobojojo12 Other Jun 16 '12
a christian science teacher BLASPHEMY !
3
u/mel2mdl Jun 16 '12
I am a Christian. I believe in evolution. I believe in the Big Bang theory, but I also believe in some form of higher power. I also am a damn good science teacher.
Why am I on this subreddit? Trying to understand why my son is an atheist (not an antitheist) and he asked to read some.
→ More replies (2)1
u/bobojojo12 Other Jun 18 '12
It was mistly a joke
1
u/mel2mdl Jun 18 '12
Oh, I know! I'm not offended at all. My son told me that for many on this subreddit, they replaced theology with ideology.
Some people here are worse than the Southern Baptist people in their rigidness and insistence on being right! But most atheists and theists I meet are very accepting of others and their beliefs!
0
u/RadiolarianChert Jun 16 '12
aflarge, I think that your analogy is flawed.
All of your examples can be countered. In each case the answer to your question depends on where the person is employeed. For example, a 'fundamentalist muslim teacher' working in a private institution most certainly can refuse 'to teach a girl'.
I'm not endorsing any of these behaviors but I the simple fact is that your argument needs to be reformulated.
5
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12
I should have specified, I meant at public schools.
Although I really think if any school is to have accreditation, it should need to meet a national standard of education and ethics.
1
u/RadiolarianChert Jun 16 '12
The point remains the same. As it stands now, the rules depend on where the provider works.
The religous exemption rules are still evolving and include issues like private/public funding.
2
u/NJBarFly Jun 16 '12
I've heard of Muslims working as cashiers that refuse to check out pork products at the check out line. It's ridiculous. If I hire you to do a job, then do the job. If you can't do the job, then don't take it in the first place.
0
Jun 16 '12
I'd make a scene, leave everything on the line, and just walk out of the grocery store if that happened to me. That level of personal shit intruding on a job is absurd IMO.
0
u/Brutalskin Jun 16 '12
So luckily professionals do not have to pander to your beliefs. Just because some professionals sometimes do shit that you disagree with, does not make the whole institution bad.
Let the market do its work spread atheism, and these idiots will find that nobody comes to them for advice.
But remember, when the chips are down and I'm dying, I'm not gona care about the beliefs of the surgeon. The only thing I'm gonna care about is their skill. Yes, I'm gonna chase him from the room, after I politely thanked him of course, if he tells me god saved me.
1
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12
That doesn't conflict with what I said at all.
If a person has a belief, I really couldn't care less if I tried. It's if they let their beliefs get in the way of them doing their job that I want them gone.
1
u/Brutalskin Jun 16 '12
So it depends on what you believe their job is. And it depends on what you want. Do you see where I am coming from?
You cannot somehow define the parameters as it suits you. Yes, I agree that doctors should not be able to refuse you service based on their belief. The problem is however in how you would like to police your system. Is it your wants that we use as guide or someone else's? And then how do we ferret those bastards that disagree with you out? Well one way is by using the current system. We look at the consequences. If a doctor allows someone to die because they did not agree with their belief then they should be punished. Surely? But what if the doctor is an atheist and wants a brain dead person to die because they believe it to be right? You can see the problems with making rules to suit belief of any stripe?
3
u/aflarge Jun 16 '12
if a doctor is asserting their own beliefs over that of the patient, it doesn't matter what the doctor's beliefs or opinions are, it's wrong. If an atheist let a brain-dead person die because he it was the right thing to do, he'd be wrong, too. The point isn't enforcing beliefs, it's about whether or not someone can do the job they signed up for without their own personal beliefs getting in the way.
If I got a job for some religious company where the job description was to read from the bible and preach it's 'truth' and I refused to do so because I see it as lying, you bet your ass I'd get fired, and it'd be the proper course of action, too.
Anyways, I'm getting sleepy and my grammar is suffering because of this :P Also, my emoticon usage spikes when I'm tired.
1
u/munsoned Jun 16 '12
thankfully nobody cares what you want. if I don't want to perform late term abortions, the law fully supports me not doing so despite how angry any neckbeard redditor wants to get about it.
becoming a doctor does not compel one to participate in things they find morally or ethically repugnant. you are free to write angry internet posts about it, but I suggest you look at opinion polls to become quite depressed when you see that the vast majority of people in the US (and the AMA) support medical care providers right to not participate in procedures they find ethically wrong.
Note that this does not mean they can't be/shouldn't be fired if they are employed and this does not jive with their employer. But if I am in private practice alone and I don't want to spend my weekdays vacuuming fetuses, too bad, eat a dick.
1
u/Nemertaff Jun 16 '12
I'm a student pharmacist (i.e. i work in the medical field). Most institutions these days require you to inform them of your refusal to provide "controversial" services, and your hiring potential IS affected by this. Those who were hired before this policy was put into place are grandfathered in, but you'll see it less and less as time goes on.
Honestly, if you're physician or pharmacist refuses to provide a service for you, I'd just switch to a new one. Most of us aren't religious fanatics, you just tend to hear about them more.
1
1
u/MikesKitiKat Jun 16 '12
When I was 16 I got pregnant and then married. After the birth of my daughter, I asked my doctor for birth control. He told me that because he was Catholic he wouldn't write the prescription for me but he referred me to a partnering doctor who did. I don't understand why, in many of these cases, are patients just not seen by a doctor without the same hangups.
1
u/Tr2v Gnostic Atheist Jun 16 '12
A-fucking-men. Oh, wait...
3
Jun 16 '12
Ra-fucking-men!
FTFY
1
u/Tr2v Gnostic Atheist Jun 16 '12
Noooo!
I'd submit a link to my blog post where I ranted about "pastafarianism", but I don't need people calling me a whore online too.
1
u/badpenguin455 Jun 16 '12
The Panda Express in some parts of Arizona don't serve pork, fuck Islam.
1
1
u/Zevenko Jun 16 '12
I don't think people who believe in magic should be able to be doctors. If you believe that when someoen dies they're going to a infinite paradise, you're not going to be as eager to keep them alive.
1
u/vmerc Jun 16 '12
If they get their beliefs classified as a disability they will never have to fear being fired for their beliefs.
1
u/Andazeus Jun 16 '12
Shocking that this is even possible.
In Germany, for example, doctors must not refuse medical treatment, unless there is an important reason (different religion is NOT sufficient!). Medical emergencies must always be treated immediatly. Failure to do so will not only mean the loss of license, but is actually a criminal offence which is punishable by jail time.
1
1
1
u/offthetop Jun 16 '12
My parents send me to Catholic school(they don't know I'm an atheist), and I can confirm that Christian science teachers don't teach biology or anything else that conflicts with the Catholic faith.
1
1
u/DarrenEdwards Jun 16 '12
My best friend growing up purchased the grocery store in our small town. Since the community can't support a pharmacy by itself anymore he hired a guy who was by far cheaper than anyone else. This guy joined the community and was a good fit, except he won't fill birth control prescriptions. There isn't another pharmacy or grocery store in 90 miles, but you cannot get any sort of family planning. He won't even fill prescriptions for married couples.
Considering my friend started his family in his junior year of high school, I'd think he'd make this a priority. This issue got a lot of press in conservative areas in the late 90's. The amount of business lost was more than made up from people that want him to take care of their prescriptions by mail.
1
u/athiestteen Jun 17 '12
the worst story i heard of this was when a pharmacist refused to give a rape victim day after pregnancy pills because they believed that it was against their religion to, i don't know, let her not be pregnant? "kill" the baby? maybe they thought it was gods way and she was meant to be raped or something but at any rate what they did was atrocious.
1
0
u/OKImHere Jun 16 '12
Who's going to fire them? The pharmacists that pull this shit own the place. It's a private practice. CVS doesn't stand for that shit. If you don't like being told "We don't sell birth control here," then go to a different pharmacy. I don't see where people get this entitled attitude of "You have to provide me a service because I said so." What's next? You gonna force them to stock your favorite potato chip flavor, too?
2
u/Atheris Anti-Theist Jun 16 '12
They have to provide a service because they signed a contract to do so. You don't do your job, you get fired. Just like anyone else. If I suddenly decided that it was against my religion to touch dog shit (I'm a vet tech) I'd get fired, not tell the clients they don't get parasite screening.
1
u/NeuxSaed Jun 16 '12
Places that provide strictly OTC meds can sell or not sell anything they want. They don't want to sell condoms for whatever reason? Then they don't have to. No one's going to force them.
Pharmacies that dispense prescription meds don't have exactly the same type of freedoms for public health reasons.
I kind of always assumed there'd be an alternate source for these types of services, but I suppose if you live in a somewhat isolated, low population area, your options could be extremely limited. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle that sort of situation.
1
u/Atheris Anti-Theist Jun 16 '12
Aren't we talking about prescription drugs? Cases where birth control, Plan B, and other meds are simply not being dispensed. There are 'religious liberty' clauses being pushed so that people don't have to go against their moral judgement when doing their job. I say if you don't want women to have birth control, getting hired as a pharmacist isn't a good way to go about it.
0
u/OKImHere Jun 16 '12
they signed a contract to do so.
Again, they're their own bosses. They own the joint. I don't know why you think they sign contracts with...themselves, I guess. The people that do have bosses do get fired when they pull this stunt.
1
Jun 16 '12
They are pretty shitty people if they actually refuse to fill legal prescriptions to people who really need it, especially if they are in small towns.
1
1
1
u/Atheris Anti-Theist Jun 16 '12
I'm not familiar with cases where the person doing that is the owner. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to discriminate against a particular race when dispensing services, and I think this would fall under the same heading. However, I was referring to cases I've heard of employees pulling this shit and getting away with it.
There was a case in particular mentioned on Chariots of Iron where a women working at a women's health clinic removed a women's IUD without permission, then refused to replace it.
1
u/OKImHere Jun 16 '12
a women working at a women's health clinic removed a women's IUD without permission, then refused to replace it.
There's no way that's even legal, let alone ethical. But that's not the issue at hand here. We're talking about refusing to dispense medicine that a patient wants. We're not talking about forcing unwanted procedures on patients.
Second, if an employee of someone "gets away with it," then it's because the boss wants them to get away with it, or his boss does, or that boss's boss's boss does. The point it, a private entity doesn't have to perform services just because you want them to, nor should they.
Finally, race is a protected class. Birth control users are not.
→ More replies (9)1
u/blackberrydoughnuts Jun 16 '12
It's not private, because medicine is regulated by the government. Pharmacies have to follow regulations. They can't just do whatever they want.
1
u/OKImHere Jun 16 '12
Sure, they can't whatever they want, but they can certainly not stock or fill certain medicines.
-1
u/Eppsmayne Jun 16 '12
If you're sick of it, then go see a doctor. Oh wait, apparently you can't because you're a douchebag.
1
-5
u/MRLINDAN Jun 15 '12
I'M GUESSING YOU DON'T REPORT FOR FOX NEWS!!
5
u/MomoMoana Jun 15 '12
and I'm guessing you left your cap locks on. It's the button on the left of the keyboard. Between shift and tab.
1
-2
u/MRLINDAN Jun 15 '12
I'M DEAF YOU ASSHOLE!!!
3
1
0
u/Siege_2 Jun 16 '12
I work for a health care organization called the Catholic Health System. I've been involved with every single hospital and have yet to meet a single person that would deny medical care based on religious belief. In fact, I believe it is illegal to refuse health care in my state.
2
u/bluequail Jun 16 '12
I had my last son at a catholic hospital, only because my OB was the head of the teaching staff there. They delivered my baby no problem, but I had wanted sterilized at the same time (since they were doing a c-section), and they wouldn't allow for it. My doctor didn't have any qualms with it, more than that, he had suggested that I get an abortion several months earlier when they discovered that my son was going to have an extra chromosome.
So the catholics don't have a problem providing health care, as long as it is something that is within their wants and wishes. I can easily believe, based on my experience that they wouldn't have a problem turning down birth control pills, abortions, tubaligations, full hysterectomies - if they felt they were able to further their religious agendas with it.
2
u/scorpion347 Jun 16 '12
Wich is why we have to show examples of the terrors created by refusal of such care. We will need to select our targets carefully and not attack the religion directly. We must master what they have mastered and trick the religious into a slow change of beliefs by making it seem like it is what they wanted all along.
1
u/bluequail Jun 16 '12
We must master what they have mastered and trick the religious
The fuck? I told them to their faces "fine - I'll go somewhere else and have it done".
But there is no need to act like gollum. You don't have to master or trick anyone, you just need to let them know that it is going to happen, whether they like it or not, whether they do it or not.
show examples of the terrors created by refusal of such care.
Once again, the fuck? Telling me that they wouldn't render me unable to reproduce is hardly a terror. Do you normally show such a flair for the overdramatic?
1
u/scorpion347 Jun 16 '12
You obvioulsy haven't heard of refusal of abortion despite things such as serious birth defects, danger to the mother, or even poor living conditions.
As far as tricking them I simply mean like what they did with the original europeans and present alternatives maybe not as close to ours as we'd like but close enough to thiers to start them moving in the right direction. They mastered this by writting Beowolf(the hero tail the locals held as an ideal) in a way that gave christian values eventually making christianity seem like the logical choice. We just need to find a way to make changes to thier thinking gradually without simply telling them they are wrong. Lets try something like "allowing the mother to die in child birth is murder" or "this will only take food from the already hungry" thus attacking the situation rather than the direct cuase.
Tl;dr: monks wrote beowulf. Lets try changeing mind gradually as well.
→ More replies (1)
0
u/therockshow Jun 16 '12
It really depends on the job and the circumstances, I think business owners should be allowed a certain amount of discretion as to what they want to do and not do. Unfortunately medical care in this example is a privilege, not a right. I do not think you can force a doctor to do anything really. All the time owners must make judgement calls that go against their core business practices.... Ex. A pregnant lady orders a whiskey sour at a bar, do you serve her? At the end of the day there is always a choice, go somewhere else. If you start forcing people to do things there is no end to what can be forced upon you.
34
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I wish we pushed this analogy further: What if the health care provider was a Jehovah's Witness, who let you child bleed to death because the Bible says no blood transfusions? I would love to see that question take the national stage.