April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

It's like when waitresses were complaining about workplace smoking. Did everyone demand they change jobs? No, we changed the laws to protect them.

What if the waitresses were complaining about serving gay people? Smoking is a health hazard. Marrying gay couples isn't. So no, it is not like that at all.

[Slava]

Conscience rights essentially allows legalized discrimination. But you know, the whole lipstick on a pig thing...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

To who?

Sounds a lot like Liberal sabre rattling to me.

Maybe they stay home. Thats not exactly unheard of in Alberta!

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by First Lady

It's like when waitresses were complaining about workplace smoking. Did everyone demand they change jobs? No, we changed the laws to protect them.

You don't seriously believe this do you? The next time I see a toxic cloud of cancer causing gay people I may have more sympathy for this opinion, until that happens, I don't see the similiarities.

Fact is the job is a government job, it has nothing to do with religion, it is administrative and nothing else. If a minister doesn't want to marry two gay people in a church, that is their choice and one I can respect, if a government official doesn't want to do their job that is a completely different matter.

[First Lady]

I admit it was a crappy example.

But do people believe that doctors should just leave their beliefs at home?

I'm not religious at all; but what I know of my religious friends they "live" their life in a certain way. They don't do one thing one day and then do something then next day that totally defies that.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I admit it was a crappy example.

But do people believe that doctors should just leave their beliefs at home?

I'm not religious at all; but what I know of my religious friends they "live" their life in a certain way. They don't do one thing one day and then do something then next day that totally defies that.

They're public servants (at least until the Wildrose gets in!!) so yes I do expect them to do what is asked. I don't believe in killing, but if I join the army it comes with the territory.

Why should someone be allowed to deny medical care based on their beliefs?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I admit it was a crappy example.

But do people believe that doctors should just leave their beliefs at home?

Yes I do.

I'm not religious at all; but what I know of my religious friends they "live" their life in a certain way. They don't do one thing one day and then do something then next day that totally defies that.

They are public servents, they don't represent the church during the performance of their job. In their off time they can do whatever they want but when they represent the province and the laws of the province they need to peform their duties in a congruent manner.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Maybe they stay home. Thats not exactly unheard of in Alberta!

Not likely any longer that there is a real alternative to the PC's....which is why the WR is polling where they are.

Again tho...the whole thing simply isnt a big enough issue to push either moderates nor hard core righties away, particularly after the statement issued by Smith yesterday,

The left will have to look elsewhere for something to hang their "evil hidden agenda" hat on IMO.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

They're public servants (at least until the Wildrose gets in!!) so yes I do expect them to do what is asked. I don't believe in killing, but if I join the army it comes with the territory.

Why should someone be allowed to deny medical care based on their beliefs?

Really. You mean like when the Alberta government ordered doctors to do this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Eugenics_Board

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Really. You mean like when the Alberta government ordered doctors to do this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Eugenics_Board

So the example that you bring back is older than me? Who's fear-mongering?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Not likely any longer that there is a real alternative to the PC's....which is why the WR is polling where they are.

Again tho...the whole thing simply isnt a big enough issue to push either moderates nor hard core righties away, particularly after the statement issued by Smith yesterday,

The left will have to look elsewhere for something to hang their "evil hidden agenda" hat on IMO.

Just because they have no plans regarding abortion doesn't quell my fears about the other concerns I have with conscience rights.

It's weird though...why do they constantly have to defend against these things? I suppose its a birds of a feather sort of thing.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Yes I do.



They are public servents, they don't represent the church during the performance of their job. In their off time they can do whatever they want but when they represent the province and the laws of the province they need to peform their duties in a congruent manner.

and you wonder why there is a shortage of health care professionals in this province?

Im sorry but there is no way anyone should be forced to do anything against their beliefs.

Im against any and all discrimination without question, but that has to work both ways, and lets be realistic here....how many people will actually opt out of giving services we are talking about from the total pool of them. 2-5-10%?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

So the example that you bring back is older than me? Who's fear-mongering?

It's our history and was only recently (relatively) revoke, by our current PC's actually.

I can't think of a scenario where there would be a critical rejection of medical service. Can you give me one?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just because they have no plans regarding abortion doesn't quell my fears about the other concerns I have with conscience rights.

It's weird though...why do they constantly have to defend against these things? I suppose its a birds of a feather sort of thing.

Because the left has hammered the whole thing repeatedly at all levels of governance for so long, people start to believe it. Even tho its absurd when you take a step back and look at the reality of it.

I mean look no further than Alberta for proof...the days when real Conservatives sat in power for decades, all that happened was AB got progressively more socially Liberal....nothing is going to change that no matter how many times Mason, Sherman nor Redford say it.

[killer_carlson]

Wr policy is that dollars should follow the patient.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

It's our history and was only recently (relatively) revoke, by our current PC's actually.

I can't think of a scenario where there would be a critical rejection of medical service. Can you give me one?

Have a read of the article in the herald this morning. The examples given there are interesting and point to things like doctors not treating patients with tattoos, patients who didn't quit smoking. Let me ask you this, should a doctor not refer a patient for an abortion if they request it? Should a woman be denied birth control based on the religious beliefs of the doctor? How about the pharmacist?

What if that doctor/physician/marriage commissioner is the only game in town?

Frankly speaking, there are many examples of denial of service.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I can't think of a scenario where there would be a critical rejection of medical service. Can you give me one?

Imagine a town in rural Alberta with only one pharmacy. A young woman is raped and is prescribed the morning after pill so she doesn't suffer even further by having to endure an unwanted pregnancy. The pharmacist on duty refuses to fill her prescription because it's a violation of his/her conscience rights.

Sound far fetched? This exact scenario occurred in Arizona a few years ago.

Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

By Carla McClain
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Although it is safe, effective and legal, emergency contraception - the "morning after" pill - can be hard to find in Tucson.

After a sexual assault one recent weekend, a young Tucson woman spent three frantic days trying to obtain the drug to prevent a pregnancy, knowing that each passing day lowered the chance the drug would work.

While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

"I was so shocked," said the 20-year-old woman, who, as a victim of sexual assault, is not being named by the Star. "I just did not understand how they could legally refuse to do this."

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Have a read of the article in the herald this morning. The examples given there are interesting and point to things like doctors not treating patients with tattoos, patients who didn't quit smoking. Let me ask you this, should a doctor not refer a patient for an abortion if they request it? Should a woman be denied birth control based on the religious beliefs of the doctor? How about the pharmacist?

Yes, because *gasp* they have protection the charter as well.

What if that doctor/physician/marriage commissioner is the only game in town?

Then I guess they won't be in business long.

There was no doctor in my home town. And the doctors in neighbouring towns wouldn't give birth control to girls without a parents signature.... low and behold many managed to get it anyway.

[FLAMESRULE]

1 -They are government employs who have there own medical charter to follow. The patient comes FIRST. Always.
2 - They (medical professionals / marriage commis.) are public employees who are putting their beliefs ahead of someone elses. If we had a private health system, I could almost accept it. Thankfully we dont. I am fine with religious freedom for marriage.
3 - Religious freedom has no place being ahead of ANYONEs health decisions. Ever.
4 - Why should anyone have to go through the court system for any health treatment in a public system??

These are very legitimate concerns. I asked my Dad about this, as a Family Doc in AB, and he figured the AMA would fight any legal objections by its members tooth and nail. You can not have a bunch of different rules for different religions in a public system. IT would be completely untenable, not to mention the challenges that would go through the courts / human rights commission.

[First Lady]

I guess some feel it's okay for healthcare workers religious rights to be trampled on. And I believe they can co-exist along side everyone else's rights.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.