'Transgender mandate' struck down by federal court - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15048192
@Pants-of-dog The way medical care is structured in the US, it may be difficult to find a doctor or insurance provided who will do it.


It should be hard. It should be rare. It should only be done by practitioners who believe in the curative usefulness of the procedure.

The stunning lack of access to abortion is a good example of how you guys theoretically have access but real access is very limited.


Abortion is readily available almost everywhere in the US. You have been deceived.

Where are these stats and how do they show harm?


Do your own homework. I have posted this stuff many times.

This is about the freedom to impose the doctor’s religious beliefs on the patient.


No its not. Why would you say that? The doctor is imposing nothing. He proposes to do nothing. He only refuses to defy his conscience. The patient is free to find a practitioner with whom they should be comfortable.

That is not freedom, since it limits the patient’s ability to seek medical help.


No it doesn't. These are very specific and very specialized procedures. They are performed by practitioners skilled in them. You are articulating a solution in search of a problem.

No.

I said doctors would need a GOOD reason to deny care, and I defined that as a reason based on logic or evidence.

You are arguing that doctors can withhold medical treatment even without good reason.


I am saying that absent some contractual requirement to do so and absent an emergency, a doctor can refuse to treat anyone the wish to and they don't need a reason. Its an arcane concept called "freedom". And it exists in a free market.

You are contradicting yourself here.

On the one hand, you say that it would be easy to dind another doctor, then turn around and say that these specific doctors are specialists and are few and far between.


No I am not. Look at your argument. You somehow imagine that any doctor can do these things. Actually most serious medical procedures are performed by specialists. GID specialists come in many flavors from psychiatrists to endocrinologists to surgeons. Not all of these can or ought to do this stuff. Only those who are trained and motivated to do so. You want us to somehow believe that a doctor invests years learning to do gender reassignment surgery and then decides his religion won't let him do it. Doctors are smart by and large. You are imagining a situation that is highly unlikely to ever occur. BUT. At the end of the day, if the mechanic does not want to work on your car, find another mechanic.

Doctors have the same right to religious freedom that you do. Even at the inconvenience of someone else. Tell us how this parade of horribles you imagine might actually come to pass.
#15048256
@Drlee

Figure out how to use notifications, please. That post also did not work in terms of letting me (or anyone else) know that you are quoting me.

———————-

Drlee wrote:It should be hard. It should be rare. It should only be done by practitioners who believe in the curative usefulness of the procedure.


Your feelings about a medical treatment are not an argument.

Abortion is readily available almost everywhere in the US. You have been deceived.


Nope, and irrelevant.

Do your own homework. I have posted this stuff many times.


Since you have no evidence, and are not willing to provide any, this argument is dismissed as unsupported.

I am not here to do your work for you.

No its not. Why would you say that? The doctor is imposing nothing. He proposes to do nothing. He only refuses to defy his conscience. The patient is free to find a practitioner with whom they should be comfortable.

No it doesn't. These are very specific and very specialized procedures. They are performed by practitioners skilled in them. You are articulating a solution in search of a problem.


By withholding medical treatment for no good reason other than his god tells him trans people are icky, he is imposing his religious beliefs on his patient.

I am saying that absent some contractual requirement to do so and absent an emergency, a doctor can refuse to treat anyone the wish to and they don't need a reason. Its an arcane concept called "freedom". And it exists in a free market.


The free market is abysmally awful at providing medical treatment, which is why you folks have thousands of people die each year from medically treatable problems.

And the idea that doctors can refuse all elective treatment for reasons of prejudice and discrimination is merely supporting prejudice and discrimination.

No I am not. Look at your argument. You somehow imagine that any doctor can do these things.


No, this is a strawman.

Actually most serious medical procedures are performed by specialists. GID specialists come in many flavors from psychiatrists to endocrinologists to surgeons. Not all of these can or ought to do this stuff. Only those who are trained and motivated to do so. You want us to somehow believe that a doctor invests years learning to do gender reassignment surgery and then decides his religion won't let him do it. Doctors are smart by and large. You are imagining a situation that is highly unlikely to ever occur. BUT. At the end of the day, if the mechanic does not want to work on your car, find another mechanic.


...and since this is all based on your strawman, this is all irrelevant.

Doctors have the same right to religious freedom that you do. Even at the inconvenience of someone else. Tell us how this parade of horribles you imagine might actually come to pass.


This part has no argument. Ignored.
#15048271
Your feelings about a medical treatment are not an argument. And all the other nonsense you wrote.


I will not play Sport. You are using your usual ignoring points you can't answer. For example: The above. I did not post my "feelings". I posted a medical fact. That you dislike it and makes you uncomfortable is irrelevant.

You cited an example saying that abortion is very hard in the US to get. I answered saying that it is not hard to get. So what do you post after you brought the subject up yourself? You post:



———————-

Drlee wrote:
It should be hard. It should be rare. It should only be done by practitioners who believe in the curative usefulness of the procedure.



Your feelings about a medical treatment are not an argument.

Abortion is readily available almost everywhere in the US. You have been deceived.



Nope, and irrelevant.



So I will stop there. If you wish to debate then try a fact or two. I am tired of responding to your feelings.
#15048274
@Drlee

Figure out how to use notifications, please. That post also did not work in terms of letting me (or anyone else) know that you are quoting me.

———————-

Your feelings that trans surgery should be rare and hard to find and only done when the doctor feels like it is a discussion of your feelings.

You can tell by the lack of any support using logic or evidence.
#15048297
I have already posted the evidence. Do your reaing.

Please do not waste my time with your usual endless stalling.
#15048303
You may have posted evidence in some other threads that a large percentage of children who experience gender dysphoria as children do not continue to experience gender dysphoria as adults.

That does not constitute evidence “that if doctors jump the gun on reassignment surgery or drug therapy they are harming their patients”.

And even if it did, this does not constitute evidence for the argument that doctors should withhold medical treatment just because the doctor is transphobic.
#15048307
That does not constitute evidence “that if doctors jump the gun on reassignment surgery or drug therapy they are harming their patients”.


It certainly does!

And even if it did, this does not constitute evidence for the argument that doctors should withhold medical treatment just because the doctor is transphobic.


Nonsense Drop the use of the ignorant term "transphobic". It is a simple attempt to be insulting and it does not apply here. At all.
#15048309
Drlee wrote:Nonsense


No. The percentage of kids who grow out of gender dysphoria does not change whether or not doctors can withhold medical treatment because of, for example, religiously inspired transphobia.

All the US Friends I know (you may know them as Quakers) are breaking the law by withholding a percentage of their taxes: the portion that would go to supporting the military. If freedom of religion was so sacrosanct, this would be legal.

The reason this mandate is in the news while pacifist tax avoidance is not is that the current administration knows it can get more popular support out of a “religious freedom” bill targeting trans people than a “religious freedom” bill defunding the military.
#15048361
Deutschmania wrote:The article that @Sivad cited is very misleading . First of all , no , sex reassignment surgery is not specifically covered under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act .


The article isn't misleading, you just have piss poor reading comprehension. The article never claims 1557 specifies sex reassignment and makes it perfectly clear that it was the interpretation of 1557 by Obama's HHS which created the mandate.
#15048373
No. The percentage of kids who grow out of gender dysphoria does not change whether or not doctors can withhold medical treatment because of, for example, religiously inspired transphobia.


Last time. You just keep repeating your same misconceptions.

I see you admit that the treatment of kids with GID is often unwarranted. It is not something to be take lightly. It is also, more often than not unnecessary. Unnecessary surgery is always unnecessarily risky. By definition it is. And, since we are talking about children, their lives are put at risk not by their informed consent. Further.

All the US Friends I know (you may know them as Quakers) are breaking the law by withholding a percentage of their taxes: the portion that would go to supporting the military. If freedom of religion was so sacrosanct, this would be legal.


Irrelevant. Distraction.

The reason this mandate is in the news while pacifist tax avoidance is not is that the current administration knows it can get more popular support out of a “religious freedom” bill targeting trans people than a “religious freedom” bill defunding the military.


Irrelevant. Distracting.

Again. You insist on the term transphobia. You are using the term incorrectly. But then the term is inherently flawed. I refuse to discuss something that rarely if ever exists.

You have yet to articulate a good reason for requiring that a doctor be required to treat GID at all not to mention when his right to free expression of religion is at play. What is your reason? The patient is out nothing.
#15048384
Pants-of-dog wrote:I thought that the whole point of removing these protections was so that people can discriminate against trans people.

There is a certain strain of religious thought that thinks it is okay to oppress and bully people because their god says so.


There's a certain strain of PoD thought that thinks being bullied is when you can't force people to do anything you want them to. :lol:
#15048394
Pants-of-dog wrote:The reason this mandate is in the news while pacifist tax avoidance is not is that the current administration knows it can get more popular support out of a “religious freedom” bill targeting trans people than a “religious freedom” bill defunding the military.


appropriations vouchers are a great idea. religious freedom doesn't provide any basis for withholding taxes because it's not your money to begin with but once the money is collected it should be distributed back evenly in the form of vouchers to every citizen to decide for themselves how and where their fair share of the social dividend will be spent.
#15048410
It is sad that people like POD believe that religious freedom ends whenever they disagree with some part of it.

Try bulldozing some Indian graveyard and watch him scream about religious accommodation.

Freedom is freedom. I am sorry that some special snowflake does not like the fact that my religion calls upon me to honor some admonitions but I will get over my sorrow. Frankly if some baker does not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding I would hope that the gay folks involved would go somewhere else and not force profit on someone they dislike. Unless someone is taking government money, and even sometimes then, the government has no business telling me who I must treat or why.
#15048425
Drlee wrote:It is sad that people like POD believe that religious freedom ends whenever they disagree with some part of it.

Try bulldozing some Indian graveyard and watch him scream about religious accommodation.


Your portrayal of me as an overly emotional and hysterical person is noted.

And my support of indigenous rights has nothing to do with indigenous religions. They can be all atheists for all I care. But thank you for providing another example of how the US routinely ignores religious freedom when it benefits minorities instead of targeting them.

Freedom is freedom.
....
Unless someone is taking government money, and even sometimes then, the government has no business telling me who I must treat or why.


And yet, the government does tell doctors that they have to treat patients.

For example, if a doctor has a religious belief that blacks or Jews are animals and should not be treated by a doctor, then too bad. This hypothetical racist doctor is still required to treat racial minorities, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The other, more obvious, example is emergency rooms that treat patients even if they have no money, citizenship, et cetera.
#15048430
Pants-of-dog wrote:For example, if a doctor has a religious belief that blacks or Jews are animals and should not be treated by a doctor, then too bad.

Please leave the Jews out of this.
#15048506
And yet, the government does tell doctors that they have to treat patients.

For example, if a doctor has a religious belief that blacks or Jews are animals and should not be treated by a doctor, then too bad. This hypothetical racist doctor is still required to treat racial minorities, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964
.

Irrelevant.

Actually doctors are not required to do that. Their employers are. A doctor could construct a practice where he had to do neither. But as I said, irrelevant because we are speaking about gender reassignment. That is not done in emergency rooms....ever. It is done by specialists who have decided to go into the field. This law was absurd because it spoke to doctors who absolutely should not have been doing these procedures regardless of their opinion.

The other, more obvious, example is emergency rooms that treat patients even if they have no money, citizenship, et cetera.


This is a very different thing altogether. I will not wast time on this thread explaining how ERs work and why your assertion is wide of the mark. I will only say that if you go to the ER complaining that your breasts are too small you are going to get sent away. Same with seeking hormone or surgical gender reassignment. Those doctors are completely within their rights to turn away patients and they do it every day for a wide variety of reasons.
#15048512
@Drlee

Please figure out how to use quoting properly.

It is not clear as to whom you are replying.


It is obvious that you had no problem doing it.

It is sad that I could not have simply posted "fuck off" because that would be a violation of two rules, and though laudable for its brevity, would have been completely understandable to all here. So I did not do that. I don't break the rules.
#15048516
Back on topic:

https://www.baizlaw.com/can-doctor-deny ... t-options/


    Can a Doctor Deny Me Treatment? When, Why, and What are my Options?

    Bob BaizerMedical Malpractice
    Yes, a doctor can deny you medical treatment. Private doctors have some more leeway to deny treatment to patients than those in Medicare-compliant hospitals, but there are circumstances under which even doctors serving Medicare patients may choose not to serve a patient. In emergency situations, including referrals to specialists from ER doctors, a patient must receive treatment until his or her condition is stabilized. He or she may not be discharged if the discharge would result in a worsened or new medical condition.

    Reasons Why a Doctor Can Deny a Prospective Patient Treatment

    There are a few reasons why a doctor can refuse to treat a patient. The most obvious of these is if the doctor does not treat patients with the patient’s specific condition. For example, an individual suffering from a throat infection cannot realistically expect a gynecologist to diagnose and treat his or her condition.

    Other reasons why a doctor can deny treatment to an individual include:

    The patient exhibits drug-seeking behavior;
    The patient is disruptive or otherwise difficult to handle;
    The doctor does not have a working relationship with the patient’s healthcare insurance provider;
    The doctor’s personal convictions, such as a doctor refusing to perform an abortion for religious reasons or refusing to prescribe narcotics for pain; and
    The patient or the patient’s spouse is a medical malpractice lawyer.
    However, there are cases where doctors may not refuse to treat patients. In emergency situations, responding doctors and other healthcare providers are required to stabilize the patient’s condition regardless of the patient’s ability to pay for the treatment or provide proof of insurance. This is required by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).

    The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    As its name implies, EMTALA also requires healthcare providers to provide healthcare to a laboring woman until her baby is delivered. Once the baby is born or the patient’s condition is stabilized, healthcare providers are not required to provide further services.

    There is one exception to the healthcare provider’s right to deny services: discrimination. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for a healthcare provider to deny a patient treatment based on the patient’s age, sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin.

So, yes, the government can and does force doctors to give treatments even if the doctor has a religious belief that is discriminatory.

As for the claim that the transgender mandate would have forced ALL doctors to do this, even if they have no training in this specialised field, please provide evidence from an objective source.

What do you know about the effect of this on chil[…]

@Sivad Do you have an argument?

£30-£40 is the strike price and so is the maximu[…]

EU-BREXIT

Two interesting articles: https://www.theguardian[…]