|
|
Post by Smiley on Nov 15, 2004 16:42:52 GMT -5
www.glaad.org/media/newspops_detail.php?id=3659I truly am sickened. This probably makes it even worse: Perceived. The doctor just has to think that you're gay, and bam, no medical treatment for you! Again, I am sickened. I sincerely hope that this doesn't happen anywhere else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Nov 15, 2004 16:48:35 GMT -5
This is an atrocity. A plain and simple atrocity.
A form of the same discrimination does already exist in other states, it's just never mentioned. Plenty of doctors have refused to see my father because we are on social security and disability worker's comp.
Ethical, economical. It's all discrimination in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Torey on Nov 15, 2004 16:48:43 GMT -5
I am truly shocked, disgusted and offended by this. It's appauling. So if I were to be seriously ill and needed to see a doctor urgently, he could refuse to treat me because I'm bisexual? Heck, how do they know that what I happen to have isn't life-threatening? And what about if I, and many others, are in pain? The doctors can refuse to treat us, prolong our pain and misery, just because of our sexual orientation? That is...wrong. Very wrong. The world is becoming a truly insane place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Nov 15, 2004 16:50:11 GMT -5
I am truly shocked, disgusted and offended by this. It's appauling. So if I were to be seriously ill and needed to see a doctor urgently, he could refuse to treat me because I'm bisexual? Heck, how do they know that what I happen to have isn't life-threatening? And what about if I, and many others, are in pain? The doctors can refuse to treat us, prolong our pain and misery, just because of our sexual orientation? That is...wrong. Very wrong. The world is becoming a truly insane place. Welcome to the past five years of my life... |
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Nov 15, 2004 17:01:51 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]I'm scared...
The world is on a roller-coaster ride to Hell and I'm sitting on the back, covering my eyes. People like this are just urging us to go faster.[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Nov 15, 2004 17:18:13 GMT -5
Okay, did some research, read the actual bill.
From what I can see, there are two sides to this.
One side is that this is an effort to protect the health care providers from performing a service they find morally/ethically/religiously objectable. For instance, if my mother was asked to take someone off life support while working at a hospital she would have to do this or she would loose her nursing liscense. But what if she believed that this was wrong according to her religion? Tough luck - do it or never work in nursing again.
However, the fear is that this will be abused and used to prevent treatment to people who are gay, basically what that article said.
My gut still says that this is a bad idea. However, it'd be nice to see more protection for those working in the nursing field. My mother has been in some really tight situations before in which her job and her liscense was on the line because she does not recieve the same sort of protection by the law that doctors or surgeons do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Nov 15, 2004 19:15:45 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Sorry.  Next time I'll read the article before I open my big mouth. Still, there has to be some other way.[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by Tdyans on Nov 15, 2004 20:23:43 GMT -5
Okay, did some research, read the actual bill. From what I can see, there are two sides to this. One side is that this is an effort to protect the health care providers from performing a service they find morally/ethically/religiously objectable. For instance, if my mother was asked to take someone off life support while working at a hospital she would have to do this or she would loose her nursing liscense. But what if she believed that this was wrong according to her religion? Tough luck - do it or never work in nursing again. Ah, so it's a bit like the laws in some states where if a pharmacist has a moral objection to birth control, he/she can refuse to give it out, BUT they are required to refer the person to someone else who will. I wonder if there's a similar provision in this case? If so, and as long as it's aimed at allowing health professionals to avoid providing *services* that they may have moral problems with rather than avoiding providing services to *people* they have problems with, it seems okay... but I can see the fear of it progressing into the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Nov 15, 2004 20:25:42 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Sorry. Next time I'll read the article before I open my big mouth. Still, there has to be some other way.[/glow] Actually, I think the problem is that you -did- read the article. I was all riled up as well until I did some research and read the actual bill. The joys of the mass media. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 15, 2004 20:27:48 GMT -5
Yeah, kinda like what Kiddo implied in her last post...about the media. I mean, here we are upset when the media starts bashing Neopets for things that they have totally wrong.
And then things like this are just accepted.
Just a random note that people should always think actively and critically about the news stories available and look for the news and facts behind the "facts and news"
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 15, 2004 23:20:35 GMT -5
I am truly shocked, disgusted and offended by this. It's appauling. So if I were to be seriously ill and needed to see a doctor urgently, he could refuse to treat me because I'm bisexual? No, they couldn't do that. Here's a quote from the article: "the measure would prohibit the refusal of emergency care. " In other words, they can't refuse to care for you if it's an emergency. So no worries. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 15, 2004 23:23:06 GMT -5
Actually, I think the problem is that you -did- read the article. I was all riled up as well until I did some research and read the actual bill. The joys of the mass media. Yeah, that article is so biased. Trying to get people rilled up. Notice how they point out that the House of Reps was Republican-controlled. They tend to do that a lot. They never mention it when state governments are Democratic-controlled.  You really ought to read the book "Bias." It's pretty shocking how the media tries to sway things. *shakes head* |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Nov 16, 2004 2:25:52 GMT -5
I was all murder-crazy and ready to kill until I read the last few posts. Right now I'm too lazy to get the actual bill and read it, though.
Intresting thing, mass media.
And here we are making long threads bashing them for not getting Neopets facts right, and yet we believe.
^__________^
I feel so gullible.
Kiddo, if you wouldn't mind, could you post where you got that billing from? It seems like everywhere I go I'm reading about this, and I'd like to have something solid to counter it.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrufflewhompus on Nov 16, 2004 7:51:49 GMT -5
I agree. That is disgusting and wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linnen Malfoy on Nov 16, 2004 10:05:17 GMT -5
Ah, so it's a bit like the laws in some states where if a pharmacist has a moral objection to birth control, he/she can refuse to give it out, BUT they are required to refer the person to someone else who will. They've acutaly been having some problems with that. In a few cases people have refused to foward the perscription or return the slip. Of course, it is a few cases, but still, even one of those instances should be enough. |
|
<---- Misty the fennec fox, thanks Sarn 
Next time I'll read the article before I open my big mouth.
