malkieD2 posted:KK posted:When I referenced groups like that before, you specifically said:malkieD2 posted:The others are associations, and not an indication of the law. Besides, they state best practises and guidelines, not the actual law. You specifically dismissed the exact same source when I used it in reference to consent. Do you therefore conceed the consent issue completely? Or should we ignore your source? I dismissed the same source as not indicating what the law states regarding certain situations. The point I previously made has not changed, and does not contradict the point I am currently making. The resource is not an indication of the law, but is an indication of the purpose of healthcare. I am using the reference to point out what the purpose of healthcare is; a point which you are unable to argue against.
KK posted:When I referenced groups like that before, you specifically said:malkieD2 posted:The others are associations, and not an indication of the law. Besides, they state best practises and guidelines, not the actual law. You specifically dismissed the exact same source when I used it in reference to consent. Do you therefore conceed the consent issue completely? Or should we ignore your source?
malkieD2 posted:The others are associations, and not an indication of the law. Besides, they state best practises and guidelines, not the actual law.
malkieD2 posted:ok, allow me to steer this in a slightly different direction. In your opinion, what is the ultimate point of healthcare?
KK posted:The purpose of healthcare is to improve society as a whole, and more specifically to improve the quality of life for the people within society
malkieD2 posted:Personally I would have organ donation as opt-out, not opt-in. Infact, I'd *almost* go as far to suggest that organ donation should be mandatory, but I appreciate this is not the feelings of everyone. If I died tomorrow I'd be grossly upset if my organs where not given to others to improve their quality of life.
malkieD2 posted:KK posted:The purpose of healthcare is to improve society as a whole, and more specifically to improve the quality of life for the people within society Absolutely. So, be denying healthcare you are decreasing the quality of life for society. A doctor/pharmacist will come to no physical harm by prescribing contraception, whereas the patient certainly could come to harm from an unwanted pregnancy.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Of course, that improvement of the quality of life applies to more than just the physical health of individuals.
Vaderize03 posted:Kimball, that's a beautiful argument, but answer this: If health is more than just physical, why has the new supreme court basically rejected the notion of psychological harm from unwanted pregnancy, gutting Doe v Bolton? (which lays the legal framework for not only attacking abortion rights in general at the constitutional level, but also for banning rape exceptions, since psychological harm is one of the key components of a rape). Would you argue that denying a woman emergency contraception doesn't cause psychological harm, or that an unwanted pregnancy resulting from such a denial wouldn't? We differ in the idea of which "harm" is greater. To me, the patient's health in all it's aspects should always come before that of the provider if a conflict exists. To you, denying the provider's rights is potentially a greater harm. We have come to a meeting of the minds on the technical aspect of referral, but we have not reached a philosophical compromise. What an interesting dilemma.... Peace, V-03
KK posted:malkieD2, you have a PhD, and so you should be able to demonstrate a basic level of reading comprehension. Your last post failed to do that. Go back and reread what I wrote in the very next sentence:
malkieD2 posted:Patronise me all you like, it doesn't alter the fact that my point stands. A doctor/pharmacist will come to no physical harm from prescribing contraceptives. I very clearly and deliberately used the word "physical", perhaps you need to brush up on reading comprehension. You are argueing that quality of life includes the right to freedom of personal choice, and my point is that when weighed up directly against the physical health of a patient a doctor/pharmacist is not providing the best healthcare possible when not issuing them contraception.
malkieD2 posted:Vaderize03 put it down in words extremely well when he posted :- "To me, the patient's health in all it's aspects should always come before that of the provider if a conflict exists. To you, denying the provider's rights is potentially a greater harm.". That's the central core, and the ultimate purpose of healthcare - there are no conditions to this fact.
malkieD2 posted:..............................at the expense of healthcare for the patient, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter than a referral can be obtained.
Fire_Ice_Death posted:A free society doesn't mean that you can just pick and choose what you'll do at your job. As has been repeated: If you can't do the job then don't go into that field.
Mo. tightens abortion clinic regulations By DAVID A. LIEB, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 6, 6:05 PM ET JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Missouri abortion providers will face new regulations for their clinics and new restrictions on teaching sex education classes under a bill Gov. Matt Blunt signed into law Friday. The measure places more abortion clinics under government oversight by classifying them as ambulatory surgical centers. Planned Parenthood has said the law could force it to spend up to $2 million to remodel one of its clinics and halt medical abortions at another site. The law also bars people affiliated with abortion providers from teaching or supplying materials for public school sex education courses, and it allows schools to offer abstinence-only programs. Blunt proclaimed the law "one of the strongest pieces of pro-life legislation in Missouri history" as he spoke from a cross-shaped lectern during a signing ceremony in the sanctuary of Concord Baptist Church. The Republican governor said he has no qualms if the stricter state oversight causes hardships for abortion clinics. "I say if they can't meet the same basic requirements that other (medical) providers do, then they should shut down," Blunt said. Missouri Right to Life, which backed the measure, argued that groups like Planned Parenthood have a conflict of interest in supplying sex education materials because they could make money if female students go to their clinics. Blunt echoed that concern, saying sales of material to public schools were a "significant source of revenue" for the group. Planned Parenthood said it provides sex education materials to schools for free and its staff members who teach sexual health and education lessons in 41 Missouri schools are trained not to discuss abortions. An official with Planned Parenthood, which has several staffers who visit public schools, called the profiteering assertion "political propaganda." "Essentially, what Governor Blunt and the Legislature is doing is saying that teens need to be protected from information, not from sexually transmitted infections or unintended pregnancies," said Peter Brownlie, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. The state already licenses facilities that get at least half of their revenue or patients from abortions. Only one, a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, falls under that licensing requirement. The Department of Health and Senior Services said the new law would require three other clinics to be licensed. The department didn't identify them, but Planned Parenthood said its offices in Columbia and Kansas City would be affected. The organization is considering a legal challenge.
