Battra92 Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I completely agree vaccination of children should be mandatory. You have a right to decide what treatments you want done for yourself, but I don't think you should be able to inflict stupid decisions like that on your kids. But Jenny McCarthy said ... I don't think we can *force* them, though. I mean, the Amish get a pass on this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I don't think they should though. I mean, obviously you have a right to instill your religious and moral beliefs in your children, but I don't think that extends to taking actions that carry a very real and concrete threat of serious harm or death, just like you can't beat the crap out of them because you believe in firm punishment. Children aren't their parents' property, they are human beings with their own rights, and since they don't yet have the capacity to make their own decisions we as a society have a duty to protect them. Usually we delegate that duty to the parents, but when the parents are failing in that duty I believe society has an obligation to step in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts Supreme Court has stepped in on matters of vaccination before. That was with Smallpox. I guess it depends on the lethality of the illness. Here's a bit from the "American Academy of Paediatrics" http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full (Which also seems to imply vaccination > religion, on a legal level). Also states continued refusal could/should be brought up with child services as a case of neglect (which I guess is fair). It does also state that you should avoid getting rid of parents from your clinic, though "when a substantial level of distrust develops, significant differences in the philosophy of care emerge, or poor quality of communication persists, the pediatrician may encourage the family to find another physician or practice." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 As much as I dislike seeing children suffer for the mistakes of their boneheaded parents, that's the world we live in. These physicians are being faced with parents who, it is proven, will disregard medical counsel and assistance when they decide it's too much trouble. It's not just "these kids haven't had their shots." It's "these parents know that the kids need this medical procedure, and they aren't willing to do it." What if you put these kids on a medication that needs to be taken consistently, but then the parents don't fill the prescription for a few weeks because it is too expensive? What if you do a procedure on a kid, and the dressing needs to be changed, but the parents don't bother because it's too much work? Medicine can do amazing things, but if the patient doesn't hold up their end of the treatment, the attempts at healing can be worse than doing nothing at all. Meds taken improperly can cause horrible side effects, injuries and post-surgery cuts can become infected, things can get real bad, real fast. If you can't trust your patient to take care of themselves, you can't help them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 It seems disingenuous to me to say that "won't get a vaccine because they believe it causes autism" is going to lead to "won't change a bandage cause it's too much work". While misguided, the vaccine thing is at least arising out of a concern for their children's well-being. @Dean: yeah, it's pretty well established that states have the legal authority to compel vaccination, the questions is over whether states should exercise that authority (I think they should). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 It seems disingenuous to me to say that "won't get a vaccine because they believe it causes autism" is going to lead to "won't change a bandage cause it's too much work". While misguided, the vaccine thing is at least arising out of a concern for their children's well-being. It's not always "believe it causes autism." Sometimes it's "don't want to spend the money." Some parents will only get medical care when there is an obvious, pressing issue, and aren't willing to spend the money (or time) on preventive care. I'm fully in support of people wanting to know why a treatment is necessary, and avoiding unnecessary medical work, but a patient who ignores the advice of a doctor- hell, if you believe that a shot causes autism when the highly trained medical expert is telling you you're wrong- is a bad patient, and I don't think any physician should have to put up with a patient who won't cooperate. Optimally, physicians would treat everyone. But this is life. There are far more patients than there are doctors. Doctors can't treat everyone in a timely manner. So how do you choose? When you have a patient who has a record of ignoring physician advice, and one who does what they are told to do in a timely manner, it seems a pretty clear choice to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Personally, I'm worried about nanomachines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 It seems disingenuous to me to say that "won't get a vaccine because they believe it causes autism" is going to lead to "won't change a bandage cause it's too much work". While misguided, the vaccine thing is at least arising out of a concern for their children's well-being. It's not always "believe it causes autism." Sometimes it's "don't want to spend the money." Yes, but the issue in the article and that we were talking about was parents not wanting vaccines because they think they cause autism and the doctors "firing" them because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I completely agree vaccination of children should be mandatory. You have a right to decide what treatments you want done for yourself, but I don't think you should be able to inflict stupid decisions like that on your kids. But Jenny McCarthy said ... I don't think we can *force* them, though. I mean, the Amish get a pass on this. Hehe, I'm glad we can agree on one thing; Jenny McCarthy is a prick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9072684/Donald-Trump-accuses-Alex-Salmond-of-destroying-Scotland-with-wind-farms.html Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, can we all just agree that Donald Trump is a gigantic douche bag? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 The guy that wants to make a huge golf course resort thing is complaining about wind farms destroying Scotland? As it says they're coastal wind-farms. They're not on scotland. Unlike his golf course resort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Not to mention that, at least in my opinion, wind farms *enhance* views. They're so peaceful and serene. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 http://www.telegraph...wind-farms.html Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, can we all just agree that Donald Trump is a gigantic douche bag? I'm pretty sure both parties have had it up to here with Donald Trump. That's one of the biggest constants between Fox News and the other stations; mention Donald Trump on the show and they'll talk for hours about what a lunatic he is (and rightly so). In a way, it's kind of nice to know there's a public figure both sides can agree to hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) http://www.thedailys...st?xrs=share_fb "You've confused a war on religion with not always getting everything you want." Edited February 18, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Not to mention that, at least in my opinion, wind farms *enhance* views. They're so peaceful and serene. There's a wind farm a few miles outside my mums village. Nice view on the way to hers. The only issue with them is the noise they make (had a few trails lead past em), but out in see I've a feeling sound of ocean > sound of windmills. Also damn you region block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 It seems to me that a law prohibiting "no contraceptives on health plan for workers in a Catholic hospital rules" in no way impedes the Catholic Hospital's freedom to express its religion. The Hospital is still free to say that it believes abstinence is the only form of contraception that a good Catholic should use they just can't refuse to help people who think differently. That's where the question of Liberty comes up. Just as I would not expect a Jehovah's Witness organization to pay for a blood transfusion or a Christian Scientist organization to pay for anything! I'm not Catholic and I'm not opposed to BC pills but I am opposed to the government telling a church what to do. To me, that's an infringement on one's Liberty! Also, I really think the whole ZOMG! People NEED Birth Control is a rather annoying argument to me because BC generics are quite cheap. Walmart, Target, Walgreens, various grocery stores etc. in the name of Capitalism and competition have these wonderful $4 generics programs that include Birth Control pills (some are $8-$9 apparently) which is less than the copay on most insurance plans. http://i.walmart.com...ricdruglist.pdf http://sites.target....drugs_condition Seriously, this is a great program for more than just BC. A local NY/NE chain of grocery stores (Price Chopper) is even giving away free Diabetes meds and antibiotics! When someone I know had Lyme disease all their meds were free! The catch is of course that while waiting the half hour for them to fill your prescription you'll most likely do your grocery shopping there. Sounds like a good deal to me. Been out of this for a while, so apologies for the late reply but... It may be against the Catholic Dogma to use contraception, but it does not say anywhere that Catholics have a duty to physically stop anyone else from sinning. God gave Adam and Eve free will and then put the Apple tree in their garden and said "This tree over here, don't touch it." So the Catholic Hospital would not be impeded in their religious expression to say, "These contraceptives over here, don't use them." I thought the whole religion thing was about resisting temptation and being tested in your faith and what not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 But the issue (at least for the Catholics) isn't that they can't stop their employees from using the thing they believe is sinful, it's that they're (or were, they aren't anymore) going to be made to pay for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Isn't everyone else paying for it? Why should religions get a free pass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 But the issue (at least for the Catholics) isn't that they can't stop their employees from using the thing they believe is sinful, it's that they're (or were, they aren't anymore) going to be made to pay for it. But how is having to pay for an employee to get contraceptives a restriction on the Hospitals religious expression? They should have every right to express through memos, poster campaigns or direct communication, that they consider the use of contraceptives to be against God's will. They just shouldn't have the right to deny that product / service to another, even if they are an employee. Like I said, God didn't do it that way. He left temptation right there in arms reach. Catholic practice seems to indicate that you put temptation there to be resisted (hence altar boys). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Isn't everyone else paying for it? Why should religions get a free pass? Because of the First Amendment, which in addition to normal freedom of expression specifically protects religious views and practices. Religious institutions get free passes in America, always have, and that's not going to change any time soon. @Thursday: The issue isn't free expression, it's free exercise. It's pretty well established in American law that you can't compel someone to do something that violates their religion outside of a few very extreme circumstances. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 But that's my point. I don't see where it violates their religion. They aren't forced to stock, provide or sell contraceptives, just reimburse people who have already bought them. If you can point out what part of religious dogma prevents this, then I'll happily accept it, but I honestly don't believe that there is any religious rule that prevents a Catholic Hospital from reimbursing someone for having purchased birth control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Well I'm not Catholic so I can't say 100% about their dogma, but for one thing it's not reimbursing people for stuff they purchased, it's paying for it in the first place (though that's splitting hairs, I know). But I don't see the difference between buying it for someone and just providing it directly. Besides, the way religion works is they say it's against their religion so it is against their religion. It's not the government's position to tell people what their religious beliefs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Besides, the way religion works is they say it's against their religion so it is against their religion. It's not the government's position to tell people what their religious beliefs are. Well isn't that a handy get out out clause. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 But that's my point. I don't see where it violates their religion. They aren't forced to stock, provide or sell contraceptives, just reimburse people who have already bought them. If you can point out what part of religious dogma prevents this, then I'll happily accept it, but I honestly don't believe that there is any religious rule that prevents a Catholic Hospital from reimbursing someone for having purchased birth control. I don't get what you're missing. Ethan has spelled it out quite a bit but I'll try one more time. By paying for it, they are enabling it. If I gave a drunken bum $10 he'll go buy a bottle of booze with it. That makes me an enabler into something I personally believe is wrong. Many people may turn the other way when someone DOES something they disagree with, but to encourage that by paying for it is quite another thing. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 I would argue that just because something is part of a religion, that doesn't mean the law should automatically bend to their preference. While you have a right to your religion, it should not trump the law, just like other personal beliefs don't. Here in Sweden, religion does not trump the law. For example, the newly recognized piracy religion does not get a free pass from IP law. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.