- 14 Nov 2019 20:09
#15048549
Thank you for posting the absolute proof that everything I posted is true. I was wondering exactly what that I said, you take exception to.
Clearly according to what you posted the physician may refuse to treat a person who believes they are transsexual on religious grounds.
Then you refer to emergency treatment. The treatment of GID is NEVER considered emergency treatment.
Individual doctors can't refuse to treat transgendered people under most situations. BUT. This is not the question. The question is whether they can be required to perform treatments to affect a sex change. They cannot except in one really odd circumstance.
What is the odd circumstance? A physician who treats transgendered people with "conversion therapy" cannot force this on a client. Otherwise.
You are pole vaulting over mouse turds. You are asking us to believe that there is a doctor trained to treat gender reassignment who, suddenly after all of that training, decides it is against his/her religion to do it. Can you cite this ever happening.
Now POD
Go back and read the OP. The problem that led to striking down this absurd rule based solely on someone knee jerk PC opinion is that it mandates that physicians unqualified to do the surgery be required to do it. Of course the judge struck it down. Even the AMA said the rule was preposterous. And, oh by the way, dangerous.
Going further. Suppose I am a skilled psychiatrist specializing in gender identity disorders. Are you not aware that in some, if not most, cases my best medical advice might be to not have the procedures? In children statistics show that this should be my opinion in most cases. The answer is no but not no forever. No for now. The same decision is made regarding antibiotics by doctors every day. They decide not to prescribe them at all.
So nothing you posted refutes anything that I said and all of it supports what I have been saying.
Clearly according to what you posted the physician may refuse to treat a person who believes they are transsexual on religious grounds.
The doctor’s personal convictions, such as a doctor refusing to perform an abortion for religious reasons or refusing to prescribe narcotics for pain
Then you refer to emergency treatment. The treatment of GID is NEVER considered emergency treatment.
Individual doctors can't refuse to treat transgendered people under most situations. BUT. This is not the question. The question is whether they can be required to perform treatments to affect a sex change. They cannot except in one really odd circumstance.
What is the odd circumstance? A physician who treats transgendered people with "conversion therapy" cannot force this on a client. Otherwise.
You are pole vaulting over mouse turds. You are asking us to believe that there is a doctor trained to treat gender reassignment who, suddenly after all of that training, decides it is against his/her religion to do it. Can you cite this ever happening.
Now POD
Go back and read the OP. The problem that led to striking down this absurd rule based solely on someone knee jerk PC opinion is that it mandates that physicians unqualified to do the surgery be required to do it. Of course the judge struck it down. Even the AMA said the rule was preposterous. And, oh by the way, dangerous.
Going further. Suppose I am a skilled psychiatrist specializing in gender identity disorders. Are you not aware that in some, if not most, cases my best medical advice might be to not have the procedures? In children statistics show that this should be my opinion in most cases. The answer is no but not no forever. No for now. The same decision is made regarding antibiotics by doctors every day. They decide not to prescribe them at all.
So nothing you posted refutes anything that I said and all of it supports what I have been saying.
To believe in God is impossible not to believe in Him is absurd.
Voltaire
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Voltaire
Voltaire
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Voltaire