conscientious objector

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534 ... latestnews

Pro life nurse basically forced to participate in a 2nd trimester abortion. My first thought is she shouldn't have had to do this. On the other hand, she chose this profession. Is it any different than a member of the national guard refusing to deploy overseas to fight in the war?

Do you think she should be able to sue? Should be able to go on workers compensation (because of mental trauma)? Should there be laws allowing medical professionals to refuse to participate in procedures they find unethical or immoral by their own code?

I'm going to guess that there was an internal "political" motivation to why she was assigned and they couldn't find anyone else to cover despite having 6 hours to do so. They probably wanted her to quit / get fired, but she wouldn't. It would be interesting to follow this legal case.

[Ragorn]

If you're a medical professional, you do the job you were hired to do. Your personal and moral objections belong in the ballot box, not the ER.

Lots of people have moral objections about different things. Why should abortion be given special treatment? If you're Muslim and you work at a deli, do you get to sue when someone order pork sausage and you have to touch it?

[Sarvis]

If you're a medical professional, you do the job you were hired to do. Your personal and moral objections belong in the ballot box, not the ER.

Lots of people have moral objections about different things. Why should abortion be given special treatment? If you're Muslim and you work at a deli, do you get to sue when someone order pork sausage and you have to touch it?

If you're a soldier and the captain orders you to throw a bunch of people into gas chambers, should you just do it?

Sorry, don't like the idea that you should have to do anything and everything your boss tells you...

On the other hand, Kiryan since when does private industry not have the right to fire employees for not doing their job?

[Sarvis]

On the other hand... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... liefs.html

Some days, I think we're pretty much just fucked no matter what.

[kiryan]

When there is a union. Ziiiing.

I tend to agree with Ragorn. I think the answer is this nurse should've work for an organization that does not provide abortion or have it written into her contract that she does not have to work on abortions. We probably don't need laws carving out special rights for what is essentially christians in healthcare. She should not have a right to work wherever she wants (place paying the most) but only do the parts of the job she wants. How can you run a business that way.

[Ragorn]

If you're a soldier and the captain orders you to throw a bunch of people into gas chambers, should you just do it?

What, when you applied for work at the abortion clinic did they not tell you you'd be assisting with abortions? When you got hired at the pharmacy, was it not clear to you that sometimes people have prescriptions for Plan B and that filling those prescriptions is part of the job?

[Sarvis]

If you're a soldier and the captain orders you to throw a bunch of people into gas chambers, should you just do it?

What, when you applied for work at the abortion clinic did they not tell you you'd be assisting with abortions? When you got hired at the pharmacy, was it not clear to you that sometimes people have prescriptions for Plan B and that filling those prescriptions is part of the job?

What, when you joined the army they didn't tell you you'd be killing people?

My point was that blindly following orders isn't a great idea.

The company does have the right to fire you for non-compliance though.

[Kifle]

If you're a soldier and the captain orders you to throw a bunch of people into gas chambers, should you just do it?

What, when you applied for work at the abortion clinic did they not tell you you'd be assisting with abortions? When you got hired at the pharmacy, was it not clear to you that sometimes people have prescriptions for Plan B and that filling those prescriptions is part of the job?

I think Sarvis' point was: should you be able to object to doing something considered by most rational adults to be ethically dubious even though your boss is telling you to. Example: should the soldiers in concentration camps have opted to not kill jews for no reason even though they were ordered to and were bound to by a strict definition of their job? I think most would say yes. This is, however, reductio ad absurdum, and I don't think it applies much to this specific situation in that abortions are a normal medical procedure -- genocide and torture are not (and are even against the geneva convetions while abortions are within the rules defined by proper medical procedures and ethics).

In this case, I would say the nurse has no leg to stand on unless something giving her the option to not assist on an abortion procedure was in her contract -- verbal or written. If she can't fulfill her duties, the company has no reason to not look for somebody better suited for the position. It is simple business that can be applied to almost any job.

[Ragorn]

Really, I should have just called Godwin's Law on Sarvis's post in the first place.

[Sarvis]

Really, I should have just called Godwin's Law on Sarvis's post in the first place.

It was meant to be hyperbolic more than anything. I'm just trying to point out that objecting to something your employer does is not automatically bad. I've been asked to doctor data on the way out of our systems, for instance. I explained to him that this would probably cause discrepancies down the line, but another person might have just done it. Manipulating data is not at all outside of my job description (Programmer/Analyst) but I felt that particular request was dishonest and refused to do it.

Gas chambers are just so much more dramatic.

[Corth]

Umm if your job requires you to do thing that you consider immoral, you should either refuse or quit.

[kiryan]

What about the "safety" aspects of this? I'm thinking specifically of the nurse. We tend to think of safety in terms of physical safety or ergonomics, but if this nurse has been so "traumatized" as a result of this, she may no longer be able to function in society and be entitled to workers compensation.

I know a nurse... that was very seriously traumatized by an event that is too disturbing to mention. She developed severe anxiety to the point she couldn't work in her job. She eventually took a job in IS with the same company, but she lost a lot of pay and benefits.

So I'm wondering three things.

1. should they be able to get workers compensation for doing what is normally their job if they have been "injured"?
2. should we keep people out of these professions that have these strong moral / ethical objections? or allow them to be discriminated against for work at certain types of facilities?
3. if you have plenty of other people who have no moral objection to a specific procedure, why wouldn't it be ok allow the other half to get a waiver. I would definitely support a requirement if it would materially impact access to that procedure (like if you are the only pharmacist in 10 miles and you won't fill Plan B).

[Desirsar]

On the other hand... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... liefs.html

Some days, I think we're pretty much just fucked no matter what.

Interesting link. First, evaporating alcohol from your skin is not "consuming" it, not even by the definitions in their religion. Two, if they don't use it and continue to use services or work in places where they may spread the swine flu virus or any other communicable diseases, they're consciously choosing to spread disease to other people, which I'm pretty sure (although not completely) is also against their religion. If they can't do one or the other because of their religion, I guess they're out of luck going to those public places or working in those jobs that require (more than normal) sanitary conditions. My religion says I'm allowed to kill morons for no other reason than being a moron, and that I am qualified to judge them in this respect (in my religion, anyone can make their own sect, declare themselves the leader, and receive instructions from the goddess themselves. In general, disregarding instructions of that sort are wiser than following them.) Unfortunately, the US has Christian laws, not "complete religious freedom" laws, as entertaining as that might be.

To keep on topic with the original post, however - in order to receive religious accommodations in your employment, you have to both choose a profession that does not conflict with your beliefs by definition (less obvious to religious people than you'd think), and notify the employer in advance, who only has to make *reasonable* accommodations. I don't think a hospital or clinic refusing to hire a nurse that in turn refuses to perform many of the procedures necessary in her employment is unreasonable.

I'm on the fence with the pharmacy point. Sure, it makes sense to regulate an industry in areas of little or no competition, but you can mail order your prescriptions from almost anywhere in the US. The doctor prescribing these drugs in an area where he knows the only pharmacist has an issue with dispensing them should already know and be recommending to patients where to get the drugs most conveniently, and should be prescribing in quantities that allow the patient to stockpile enough to use while waiting for the next mail order shipment.

[Kifle]

What about the "safety" aspects of this? I'm thinking specifically of the nurse. We tend to think of safety in terms of physical safety or ergonomics, but if this nurse has been so "traumatized" as a result of this, she may no longer be able to function in society and be entitled to workers compensation.

I know a nurse... that was very seriously traumatized by an event that is too disturbing to mention. She developed severe anxiety to the point she couldn't work in her job. She eventually took a job in IS with the same company, but she lost a lot of pay and benefits.

So I'm wondering three things.

1. should they be able to get workers compensation for doing what is normally their job if they have been "injured"?
2. should we keep people out of these professions that have these strong moral / ethical objections? or allow them to be discriminated against for work at certain types of facilities?
3. if you have plenty of other people who have no moral objection to a specific procedure, why wouldn't it be ok allow the other half to get a waiver. I would definitely support a requirement if it would materially impact access to that procedure (like if you are the only pharmacist in 10 miles and you won't fill Plan B).

1. Only if the event in question were not considered a regular affair within that profession. If the nurse was working in the ER and was traumatized by seeing a 9 year old with three gunshot wounds to the head, then she would be out of luck due to the nature of her job. On the other hand, if she was a waitress and was raped in the bathroom at work due to poor security protocols which had been brought to management's attention, then yes, she should receive compensation.

2. This is sort of a loaded question due to the pejorative meaning in "discrimination." I don't think it's a far stretch that if the person is not able to perform the duties of the job, they should not be hired for that job, and the company has the right to discriminate in this sense. If somebody with no fingers wants to be a data entry specialist, they have all the right to the education that would qualify them for the job; however, in cases like this, the company should not be obligated to hire them due to the prospect's limitations. I think the same applies to moral/ethical reservations. It would be silly to force an abortion clinic to hire a nurse or doctor who is morally against abortion. The mental state of the applicant should be taken into question when they hand in their resume.

3. Because it puts an unfair workload on the half that are willing to do all procedures. If you have two nurses on duty on third shift, yet one will not perform procedure X, but all patients who come in that night need procedure X, the less qualified nurse is virtually getting paid the same as the qualified nurse for doing 100% less of the work. In essence, she is on welfare -- getting paid to do nothing. The other nurse is getting paid the same wage, yet she is doing double the work. While extreme and highly unlikely, this hypothetical displays why this would be a bad practice; however, if all employees agree to these conditions, and they are accepted at the date of employment, I don't see this as being a problem.