We Know What's Best For The Little Woman

[filkertom]

By way of vixyish: Read, and read. And then, after you're done throwing up and gnashing your teeth and cursing these fucking evil moron Puritan babysitter wannabes to the skies, act, and act.

ETA: Honestly, gang, while I appreciate you asking if you can copy a link, you can pretty much assume that if I put the links up here and tell you to go do something about them, [a] they're reasonably safe, at least on a browser/system security basis, and [b] it's okay to copy 'em to your own LJ or wherever. Dang, but I've got a polite buncha friends. :)

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

And it comes down to one simple thing: If you aren't prepared to do what the job entails, don't train for, apply for, or get the job.
Yes, fine, no argument there, I agree completely. But what about the guy who's been working that pharmacy for 30 years already? Are we going to tell him he has to quit the workforce at age 55 because we made a pill that he's not OK with dispensing?

If you agree completely, why are you looking for loopholes? Yes, a pharmacist ought to have to dispense prescriptions fairly and without reservation, in all cases. That's his (or her) job, and it's what it says (as nearly as I understand it) on the license.

ISTM that agreeing with ann_totusek places the burden on him to find a pharmacy where there's a discriminatory policy, and get hired there. ("the nurse or physician also has a responsibility to know who they're working for and not work for a clinic/hospital/organization that provides what they don't agree with.") If he's an employee of a pharmacy that dispenses something he objects to, post his hire date, it's still on him to find a job where he's comfortable. He can discuss and attempt to influence the policy, but if it disagrees with him, he's got to go. Or he's no professional.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Yes. It's the religious belief :-)

Any reasonable management will tell you that this is the policy, and you can either work within it or leave. Unreasonable management (of which there is too much) will make conditions intolerable to the point where you leave. Management that violates the law will simply fire you (and probably point to other alleged reasons why they did so; most competent courts will see through that, as they do in other labor situations).

There comes a point where policy has to be made in favor of the patient or the professional; I, and the policy you said you agree with, am firmly on the side of the patient and impartial, nondiscriminatory treatment/dispensing (absent a legal and pre-existing policy of the institution to the contrary).

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I'm smiling because while the religious beliefs really are at the root of the problem, I have no problem with them or the fact that people hold them per se. Freedom of religion is irrelevant to this problem; people may believe as they will. It's their actions (in terms of compliance with the law and their professional licenses) that concern me.

It's the responsibility of the government to ensure equal treatment of its citizens, and, in this arena, the right of the patient to be treated without discrimination supersedes that of the licensed professional to fail in his or her responsibility by dint of whatever belief may be professed. I don't care if the actor is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Wiccan, Satanist, atheist, or any other faith. I expect them to treat all comers with equal effort. (Noting, of course, the human inability to be perfectly egalitarian: I'd certainly expect them to try harder for friends and family, for example.) This ensures, as far as I can determine, that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists don't suddenly develop beliefs that preclude their treating whatever group or individual they may have a hate on for, at the moment. It's a position consistent with other nondiscrimination legislation now in place, and while you may not agree with it or me, it is a sounder moral and ethical, and more legally defensible position (AFAICT) than the opposite.

I see that your emphases are complementary to my quote, omitting the responsibility clause between (which I applaud; see above). That seems as if you are arguing for rights without responsibilities. If so, I respectfully note that such an argument cuts no ice.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"One day, the government issues an edict stating that you must also perform abortions."

Nice try at misrepresenting the issue.

The actual issue is that you want the government to nullify your boss' property rights, by nationalizing his decision about whether to put up with an employee who won't perform certain job functions. In principle, it's no different from a rule forbidding employers to fire people because they sit at their desks playing Minesweeper all day.

"We're talking about people who say "We don't do this procedure, at all"

Er, no. We're aren't talking about people who decide which procedures will and will not be performed at their facilities. From one of the original news cites (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-21-hhs-abortions_N.htm):

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers.

Obviously, nobody needs to certify in writing that they are respecting their own rights to decide how to run their own businesses. What is being demanded is a committment to keep someone on the payroll for playing Minesweeper all day because the spreadsheets offend their sensibilities.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"property rights?"

Since the concept seems to escape you, I'll explain it in more detail. In a free-market economy, someone with the ability to start a business purchases capital and hires labor. This involves various judgment calls, including who to hire and who to fire. Typically, someone's unwillingness to actually do the job you hired them for triggers that last decision. This is distinguished from a communist economy, in which people who share the ruling clique's political prejudices get to keep their jobs regardless of whether or not they actually do them.

Oh, and it turns out that the regulations do say that you're entitled to enter a job you have no intention of actually doing. From the above-linked news coverage:

The regulation is written to apply to a broad swath of the health care work force, not doctors alone. Accordingly, an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be covered. Also covered would be volunteers and trainees.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

You've made your position perfectly clear. I understand it; I reject it, as flawed logic:

Imagine you're a nurse at a birthing center. Your job description at the time of hire was to assist in pre-natal care and the child birthing process.

That's your entire job description. One day, the government issues an edict stating that you must also perform abortions. This violates your religious beliefs. Is it right that the government should be able to force your firing?

In this case, you again deliberately overlook the option of the nurse quitting. New job responsibilities are common in all fields; the options are always perform them or not, quit if you don't like it, or protest and be let go if you don't perform. Healthcare not only is not, but SHOULD NOT BE privileged in this regard, because the clients are people whose lives might be at stake if a worker errs or fails to perform.

You can like it or not; you can agree or not -- but believe me, I understand you're trying to discriminate against ME as a patient on the basis of your hypothetical worker's religious beliefs. S/he took a license; she can perform or find other work.

It's the responsibility of the government to ensure equal treatment of its citizens
Since when?

You're being disingenuous. That's the point of all the nondiscrimination legislation on the books. Or have you never heard of -- or discount, as a matter of policy -- such legislation as the Civil Rights Act? (Or perhaps your version of "libertarian" is the "I've got mine; screw you" variety?)

what discrimination? this is not an argument about a professional offering a service to one group of people and denying it to others...Again, if this were a situation of them offering the service to one group and not another, I would applaud you...Again, we're not talking about people who are saying, "yes, you can have this procedure, but you can't" We're talking about people who say "We don't do this procedure, at all"

This is precisely, exactly, and specifically the heart of the argument. For example, this recent ruling by the California Supreme Court that doctors cannot refuse to inseminate lesbians, based on the doctors' feelings about lesbians.

Stand up and clap for me. Then sit down and shut up. I'm done with you and your wishing the world was as you wished it, not as it is. (Which, I point out, is a very modern Republican thing to do. It's what they've done very publicly for eight years.)

I expect you'll want and take the last word, and will once again willfully misinterpret my words, or insist that I haven't spoken to your hypotheticals. Go ahead, and feel vindicated and superior. I've had it, arguing with a rock. I have actual, productive work to do, where they won't allow me to yatter back at you.

Good night.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"However, you're giving the government the ability to force you to choose between employment and your religion."

It's called "life". If you're an observant Jew and the best jobs around require working on Saturday, or you're an observant Muslim and the best jobs around are at the brewery, well, it sucks to be you. That doesn't mean that the government should give you special privileges (and the ability to not do your job and get paid anyway is a pretty big honking special privilege).

"To force people to provide procedures to which they are absolutely opposed...."

Well, then, it's a good thing that the United States took care of that as of 6 December 1865.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

You clearly do need to explain further, since you haven't even begun to make any connection between the government and the following scenario:

Your Boss: The customer wants X.
You: I don't want to do X.
Your Boss: OK; I don't have any other problems with you, so I'll be glad to provide you with a reference when you find a job that doesn't require you to do X.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"Attempting to get a job that has duties you will not perform is completely different from having a job and suddenly being told you have new duties that are objectionable."

The former means that you're a jackass. The latter means that you have a choice between resignation and compromising your beliefs. So, yeah, they're different, but not in a way that has any bearing on the issue at hand.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

The choice belongs to the employer ("You don't want to do the job I hired you to do? Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya."), as it should.