Oops, your IUD fell out! Praise Jesus!

She is being sued.

It is assault, no question about that. 

This is so gross and horrible and while I'm glad she's being sued, how many other practitioners do this, in more and less horrible ways, and it doesn't make the news? How many times has this nurse done this and gotten away with it? She could probably tell us, since she brags about it and finds it "funny". Fuck.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I only read what was posted, not the link. I would ahve been shocked if she WASN'T being sued so it's nice to see my world make sense again. And I know enough about malpractice issues that there's really no doubt in my mind that the lawsuit will be successful.

Mine are not mixed. These people should be fired. They have zero right to accept a job with responsibilities to those they serve and then claim it is against their "morals".

Fuck them. 

Your first point is my thought exactly, Summer. I'm a surgeon and rely on many people when i'm in the OR from other doctors to the anaestheseologists to nurses and the LAST thing I want is for anyone in that room to not be 100% committed to the procedure or for anyone to ahve any reservations whatsoever, moral or otherwise. There are enough things to worry about and enough things that can go wrong that adding anything else to that equation is medically reckless.

I don't think they should be fired, Stargazer. If a nurse is good at their job and works in numerous different areas, if there's one specific area in which they do not want to practice, that's not an issue. If there are multiple nurses available and say that there's an abortion being performed in Room A and an apendectomy being done in Room B, if they'd rather work on teh apendectomy and another person is happy to cover teh abortion, there's no cost to the patient or the hospital.

Where I DO have a problem is more with pharmacists refusing to dispense certain drugs that have been legitimately prescribed by a doctor.

Maybe so. I'm speaking as a doctor who doesn't want to see good, valuable people lose their jobs because of their moral beliefs so long as they don't interfere with the health of patients or the success of the hospital.

In other news, this thread is being moved to the feminism forum, since violence against women and interference with their reproductive rights is a feminist issue. 

Quote:

good, valuable people lose their jobs because of their moral beliefs

See I have a hard time seeing moralistic people as good people, but that's just me and I'm a heathen. Anti-women medical personel are not good people and should find a job where the morals don't fall on others. If fact I think it's really quite horrid to go become a doctor and then dictate the care of patient based on your religous beliefs. Let's really play God eh?

I posted this in the other thread but since people seem to be discussing it here, I'll re-post part of what I said in order to clarify:

In the other thread, someone took issue with me referring to "good" nurses who refuse to be involved in abortions. Now, I wasn't using the word "good" to describe tehir moral character but rather their abilities as a nurse. I know very well - and anyone who has ever had to spend time in a hospital knows very well - that a good nurse can be worth their weight in gold. if an excellent nurse refuses to be involved in abortions but is of great value in so many other areas, I think it would be borderline criminal for them to lose their jobs. And in the end, its the patients who suffer.

When I'm doing a procedure (an orthoscopic knee surgery, for example), I could give a damn what my team thinks about abortion. It's about as relevant to the success of the procedure as their favourite colour or if they prefer tea or coffee.

The real question is "Can patients get teh medical services that tehy need?" Assuming there's more than one person available and capable of doing it and both are qualified, why does it matter whether Person A or Person B does it as long as it gets done?

Also, Remind, jsut to be clear in case there is any confusion: I certainly was not referring to this particular nurse. SHE should never be allowed to practice again as she is a threat to patients. But there's a big difference between actually assaulting a patient in your care and opting out of participating in a procedure.

if someone DID have a moral objection to bypass surgery and i was either performing or having said surgery, then i don't want that person in the room. period. However, I've yet to meet anyone who actually has such an objection whereas I'm sure there are many who have moral reservations about abortion.

Saying that abortion is comparable to objecting to a bypass cause the person ate too much junk food is a misnomer because objecting to abortion is about objecting to the procedure itself not to the patient as would be the case of junk food person. If someone is unwilling to treat certain patients whereas they'd treat others in the same position, yes, that's a disqualification. If the grand wizard of the KKK comes in for life-saving surgery, you are morally obligated to do everything you can to save their life, no matter what you think of them personally.

The notion that medical professionals shouldn't be judging things morally just isn't the way the world works. Everyone - whether tehy're a doctor or a teacher or a plumber or whatever - has moral viewpoints and pretending otherwise doesn't get us anywhere. Doctors exercise "morality" in other areas. For example, certain states (not mine) have legalized assisted suicide. Now, I happen to think that the terminally ill should have a right to decide to end their life but i recognize that others strongly disagree and I would never want anyone forced to participate in an assisted suicide if they objected to it.

Women have teh right to an abortion. The Supreme Court has upheld that right. None of us have the right to prevent that. But at the same time, no one should be compelled to aprticipate in it.

I have the right to drink beer. That's my legal right. But if, for example, there's a devout Muslim who is strongly opposed to alcohol and he owns a convenience store and refuses to sell alcohol in their store, that's their choice. as long as I can buy my beer elsewhere, I'm not being harmed.

Should I be morally compelled to perform abortions or lose MY job? I perform other medical procedures that are very valuable. What's the difference if i don't perform one specific one?

The big idea these days to peaceful co-existence among people with different values is the notion of "reasonable accomodation." If we can accomodate someone's religious or moral beliefs without causing undue hardships to others, then we should. There's a nurse with whom i work who is an orthodox Jew and HER moral values preclude her from working on the Jewish sabbath (except in the ICU since this work is considered life-saving and takes precedence). Her supervisor knows this and so they don't schedule her to work friday nights or sturday mornings or if tehy really must make her, she'll be assigned to teh ICU. This seems pretty reasonable to me. Patients still get their care and this nurse gets to stay true to her beliefs. You need a balance between respecting people's values and not hurting others. There have been all sorts of cases involving Sikhs and their turbans for example and the way it's tended to go is that in situations where a uniform is required, like the RCMP, a Sikh wearing a turban is just fine. Why lose a potentially good person just because they want to be true to their values? In other cases where it might be a danger - like a firefighter who can't wear a helmet because of the turban and puts their life at risk - THEN we can say that the accomodation isn't so "reasonable" and the person has to decide take off the turban or find another job. But if a nurse doesn't want to be involved in abortion and there are other nurses who can do it, just like the Sikh wearing RCMP offer - why lsoe a valuable employee over religious beleifs that don't hurt anyone?

Ok, Michelle's way ahead of me and started just such a thread here. 

I'm cutting 'n pasting that to the other thread where I think the topic is being developed more fully. 

This one shoulld probably stay more specifically with the topic in the OP.

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

I don't think they should be fired, Stargazer. If a nurse is good at their job and works in numerous different areas, if there's one specific area in which they do not want to practice, that's not an issue. If there are multiple nurses available and say that there's an abortion being performed in Room A and an apendectomy being done in Room B, if they'd rather work on teh apendectomy and another person is happy to cover teh abortion, there's no cost to the patient or the hospital.

Don't be ridiculous, Makwa. I specifically said i wasn't defending THIS nurse. I said she should never be allowed to practice again. I also pointed out (not that it should be necessary) that there's a huge difference between opting to not participate in something and actively interfering with a medical procedure.

And I have no idea why you felt the need to call me racist for my comments plainly DEFENDING the right of people to wear a turban on the job. I guess I can expect that next I'll be called an anti-Semite for supporting accomodating a Jewish woman's sabbath observance.

Oh bullshit.

Fish or cut bait. 

And thank you Makwa. 

Makwa, your extension of SCC's argument doesn't make sense.  He wasn't defending the IUD removing nurse in question.  He was saying if someone doesn't want to perform an abortion then have them do something else.  So, using your example, if someone objects to blood transfusions b/c of religious beliefs, the solution would be not be force them to do a blood transfusion but to have someone else do it.  If the person interferes with the blood transfusion then they should be fired and jailed etc. 

pookie wrote:

...Calling SCC a "racist twit" because he brought up the turban issue....is ridiculous.

When racialized people take offence at a statement in this context, it isn't necessarily useful to determine the merits of their feelings on the matter from a privileged vantage point. It doesn't require our approval.

Shall we "accommodate" doctors or nurses whose "religion" prohibits them from treating certain categories of people - in order not to totally lose their [i]"skills"[/i]? I believe South Africa once had a "religion" like that.

It is unbelievable offensive and disingenuous that anyone would compare accommodation for a person who doesn't want to work on the "Sabbath" with a person who doesn't accept women's rights as recognized by our society.

Persons who will not participate in abortion for "religious" reasons cannot be allowed to work in medical facilities where such procedures are performed. No ones religious beliefs should have even the shred of a possibility of trumping the rights of women, as is confirmed by Section 28 of the Charter:

Quote:

[b]Notwithstanding anything[/b] in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

You will also recall the babble thread where we discussed the Québec government's move to entrench exactly this same principle in the Québec Charter.

never mind, I see the mods have asked that this discussion stop.