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

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

I wish this were only about abortion. Ironically, it would be so much simpler. But it's not.

This law would allow anyone employed by a medical institution (from the doctors down to the janitors) to refuse any or all actions and treatments for any reason, and would forbid them from suffering any consequences for their actions.

This includes:
A woman has Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, a condition in which her ovarian cysts could erupt. Her condition requires a prescription hormone drug that also happens to be a contraceptive. The only pharmacist in town refuses to prescribe it, and her state expressly forbids crossing state lines for medical treatment. Despite the fact that he is endangering her health, the pharmacy may not fire him.

A man is diabetic. The only pharmacist in town is a vegan, and she refuses to prescribe insulin because it is made with animal products. Despite the fact that she is endangering his health, the pharmacy may not fire her.

A woman has been in a car accident and requires emergency care. A doctor who is of a fundamentalist Middle Eastern faith refuses to treat her because his religion dictates he must not touch a woman not his wife. Despite the fact that he is endangering her health, the hospital may not terminate him.

A pharmacist has recently converted to the Christian Scientist faith. She refuses to dispense any and all prescriptions, and instead advises her patients on the value of prayer. The pharmacy may not terminate her.

In any other profession, especially other professions of life-and-death, we would not stand for this. We would not allow a Jewish policeman to refuse help to a crime victim who happened to be an Arab or a Christian. We would not allow a female firefighter to refuse to put out a fire in a building that housed a men's club, or a firefighter who was a member of PETA to refuse to put out a fire in a medical research lab. Such failures to act, though based on conscience, would be investigated, and almost certainly disciplined, because they endangered lives. But this rule would expressly forbid any consequences or discipline toward anyone in the medical industry who endangered lives in a similar manner.

If a doctor doesn't agree with contraception or abortion, they should have gone into podiatry, or dermatology, or proctology, or cardiology, or neurology, or pretty much ANY specialization other than OB/GYN.

Even so, this isn't a law that would protect you from being required to take a life. This is a law that would say, you personally, as a nurse, are allowed to refuse to give a blood transfusion because you believe they are sinful, or refuse care to a Muslim because you dislike how his religion treats women, or refuse emergency care to a gunshot wound victim because he's a criminal, or refuse ANY care to pretty much anyone on the basis of your conscience, and the hospital or clinic that employs you is not allowed to fire you for that.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

This is what I've been saying.

[qnofhrt.livejournal.com]

A man is diabetic. The only pharmacist in town is a vegan, and she refuses to prescribe insulin because it is made with animal products.

Insulin from animal sources is not and has not been available for quite some time. Human insulin (made by genetic engineering, which opens up a whole 'nother can of worms) has been available since 1982.

OT:curiosity point...

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

I can't help but wonder why they can't take a batch of E. coli engineered to produce insulin from blood glucose and place them inside the chamber of an electronic implant that monitors the glucose levels then "feeds" the E. coli when the number reaches a certain level and releases the resulting insulin. There'd be a minimum "always on" state for the E. coli but if the pancreas in question has failed that would be needed anyway.

I don't know, maybe the technology just isn't there yet, but it seems like something like this should be repairable. Instead it's drugs or a transplant. :-(

Re: OT:curiosity point...

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

The process of turning on the gene you've implanted in these E. coli, and then when they're done making enough of your desired protein, lysing them, and purifying your protein away from the DNA, the E. coli's other proteins, and other and sundry cell debris, takes me several weeks of 16-hour workdays in the laboratory. (I'm harvesting and purifying histone proteins in vitro.)

As a matter of fact, I presented a PowerPoint presentation of all this at the local Mensa "con" last month, and next month I'll be reprising it at ConText.

Re: OT:curiosity point...

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

Ahh! No "instant on/off". Got it.

Thanks for indulging my curiosity! :-)

Re: OT:curiosity point...

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

ISTM that a combination of technologies would work, though; if safe insulin-producing bacteria can be included in a unit that monitors blood glucose levels and dispenses the insulin mechanically as needed, it might work. There would be logistical problems of ensuring the bacteria thrive and continue to produce, as well as how to handle "full tank" conditions to avoid overflow -- but it probably can be made to work.

[catnip13.livejournal.com]

Good point, but Vixy's example still works - there are still lots of other animal derived drugs (ie: premarin), other animal derived ingredients (lactose, gelatin) and pretty much all drugs are tested on animals, and as such, are objectionable to some vegans.

(Personally, I'm a dietary vegan who does take pharmaceuticals when I need to. But there are others who take a firmer stand than I do).

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Remember when some Muslim cab drivers refused to admit people with seeing-eye dogs or booze? Where was Bush and his "not have to act against their conscious" idea then? Everyone in every job has had to do something they were morally opposed to doing. I'm a computer programmer and I had to write an application to email everyone in our database. It wasn't technically spam but it was close enough for me. Guess what, I still did it. I'm also an Atheist and I was told to do some work on a religious college website. I did that too with my usual effort. I didn't do a half-ass job either.

This isn't on a scale of medical procedures, I bring it up to point out this law can be used by anyone and can grind the economy to a halt.