CATHOLIC hospitals threaten to close maternity and emergency departments

[skipper kelly]

Again, all people have obligations when they receive public funding. If you are receiving public funding to provide a service then you must provide it to public standards.

In this case the public standard (the law) says that a doctor with an objection must refer the patient to a doctor without an objection.

Who are these mythical people who according to you I would publically fund obligation free?

Public standards allow people choice based on their values and beliefs if they are reasonable. I see now you have gone off the must perform the abortion to the referal aspect. I have no problems with doctors being made to refer patients on. There are crap doctors out there whether religious or not. A good doctor worth his salt will refer his/her patient to the appropriate service. In the case of a lifestyle choice abortion this may not necessarily be to another hospital or clinic. In most cases it would though. The fact of this whole argument that seems to be ignored is that if these wards are closed down why would anyone go there anyway. If these wards are closed down then it is appropriate that the proportionate amount of public funding also be cut.

I have explained myself and my views very clearly to you. I disagree strongly with your view that public funding overrides all values and beliefs. Public funding does come with some obligation, obviously. Do you really want a society that forces people to commit what they view as murder, just because you dont believe it is. However long the abortion debate rages on the answer to when life beings will never be conclusive.

My views on abortion have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Mine are based on life and what I feel is right. Fundamentalists on both sides are scary mothers. Neither give an inch. Their views are worthless.

 

[Cheech14]

No what it indicates is the atheist left sits around alot on computers to pontificate.

So definately not "overall people".

There's your arrogance again.

Every human has it's own truths, to say yours is more valid than the next persons shows how much you value your own self importance.

And yes I saw an intersting doco about some witch hunt/burning incidents.

What came out from it was it was actually unlikely it was very little to do with religion in this case as was always reported but simply it was socio-economically driven.

I.e the more affluent people on one side of town riding themselves of some of the poorer people on the other side of town.

The witch hunts had primarily three causes: legal changes, religious changes and social changes. The legal changes made the witch trials possible by making it easier to charge someone with witchcraft, while religious changes started the hunts by fueling the imaginations and playing on the fears of people, but the social changes had the largest part in causing the hunts. Social changes left families and friends waging a war with each other. Rumors spread and people were singled out just because of their social status

http://www.hotchkiss.k12.co.us/hhs/English/webfolios/Alvey/Witches.htm

I guess you believe in old fairytales too hey

 

[skipper kelly]

It's true.It is rife with inconsistencies and subjective dogma

And it is the primary weakness of the whole freedom to,positive liberty philosophy (in my view)

You're becoming more and more like Skilts everyday. I have to read it 10 times over to compute. Small brain here remember.

Can you elaborate on the last paragraph?

 

[Niximus]

Public standards allow people choice based on their values and beliefs if they are reasonable. I see now you have gone off the must perform the abortion to the referal aspect. I have no problems with doctors being made to refer patients on. There are crap doctors out there whether religious or not. A good doctor worth his salt will refer his/her patient to the appropriate service. In the case of a lifestyle choice abortion this may not necessarily be to another hospital or clinic. In most cases it would though. The fact of this whole argument that seems to be ignored is that if these wards are closed down why would anyone go there anyway. If these wards are closed down then it is appropriate that the proportionate amount of public funding also be cut.

I was never in favour of forcing individual doctors to perform the procedure. Force hospitals yes, individual doctors no. The hospital receiving government funding needs to make sure that they are able to provide what is a relatively basic service. The infrastructure would already be in place there and to receive government funding they have a responsibility that those facilities are functioning and that there is staff available capable of performing it.

I have explained myself and my views very clearly to you. I disagree strongly with your view that public funding overrides all values and beliefs. Public funding does come with some obligation, obviously. Do you really want a society that forces people to commit what they view as murder, just because you dont believe it is. However long the abortion debate rages on the answer to when life beings will never be conclusive.

My views on abortion have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Mine are based on life and what I feel is right. Fundamentalists on both sides are scary mothers. Neither give an inch. Their views are worthless.

IMO views on abortion are irrelevant to this debate.

Related example: The club (of the music and drinks kind) earlier in the year that was taken to court for banning gays. Now I find that kind of discrimination disgusting (not to mention really hard to enforce).

However as much as my personal beliefs disagreed with what they were doing I had to side with the club. They were a private business and had every right to do so.

Another would be if same sex marriage was legalised. A lot of people are against it because they don't want gays married in their church and we come across that arguement every time. The thing is nobody is suggesting that. Churches are a private religious organisation and have every right to say who get's married there. They can refuse any one who isn't a virgin if they like too.

However, if the church was receiving public money then they take on obligations.

 

[skipper kelly]

However, if the church was receiving public money then they take on obligations.

I read all your post.

This is the part that we have been going over and over on. I dont think we will agree. I agreed that public funding comes with obligation. I dont agree that this obligation should override all beliefs and values if they are reasonable. If those in charge of the hospital close down those wards then the problem is solved. No one will go there and the proportionate amount of public funding can be redistributed.

If you truly believe that the Hospital should be forced to keep open those wards and provide those services then you are asking for more than they are obliged to do.

I dont see the issue.

 

[evo]

You're becoming more and more like Skilts everyday. I have to read it 10 times over to compute. Small brain here remember.

Can you elaborate on the last paragraph?

Basically there are two different types of liberty

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

'Freedom from' coercion--like the catholic doctor would claim,in that he shouldn't be required to act against his conscience--no matter who is paying the bills.

freedom of speech would also be an example of that type of liberty

To put it crudely right wing liberty.

'Freedom to' liberty--is freedom to have the opportunity of self determination--non discrimination laws would be an example.

'left wing' liberty,if you like.

The problem, as I see it ,with the latter is that it always suffers from subjective arbitrariness; that is it's type of manifestation is imposed according to who is in power.It's a type of enforced liberty,if that makes sense.

You comment drew attention to it's inherent weakness

Positive discrimination could be an example of one of the problems with positive liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin
Berlin contended that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers often equated liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when notions of positive liberty were, in the nineteenth century, used to defend nationalism, self-determination and the Communist idea of collective rational control over human destiny. Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline – those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and even humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism.

Sounds abit like the Neo-conservatives, eh.

 

[Cheech14]

See when it comes to our society no religious group/race/atheist/gender gets special treatment. Regardless of the % of the population they make up.
If an organisation does receive public funding they are bound by public policy. In this case the law says that abortion is legal and that a doctor must at least give a referral.

So then the best solution it would seem so that we both get a policy we can agree on (hopefully) is where by the Catholic medical facility won't refer a patient to a facility that deals with abortions, but that they refer the woman to her local GP to get him to refer her to a hospital that meets her needs.

To me this is a core of the issue, people should be using their own Dr for such things and not putting more work onto already over crowded and understaffed hospitals when there's another alternative.

If it were completely up to me I wouldn't fund any private organisations. Yes the government saves some money but sharing the costs for some services with private organisations but they would adapt to doing it alone.

I would have an affordable government supplied option for as many products/services as possible. They would supply the necessities and aim to break even.

Then anyone who wants something more than the basics(private schooling, private medical care, faster internet, name brands) would be able to turn to the private sector for them.

I'm still curious to who these people I apparantly am happy to receive obligation free funding are?

How much do you think it would cost to replace the major Catholic hospitals in Melbourne with public replacements?

I'm not sure any government would ever undertake such an event because the costs would be enormous and we can't staff the hospitals we have now let alone new ones.

Like it or not the Private hospitals are vital to the nations health systems and for the services they provide to the public they do deserve funding.

If the people who support abortion are so for it why don't they raise their own money and build their own facilities?

Most catholic facilities were started by donations from members who supported an idea.

 

[Niximus]

So then the best solution it would seem so that we both get a policy we can agree on (hopefully) is where by the Catholic medical facility won't refer a patient to a facility that deals with abortions, but that they refer the woman to her local GP to get him to refer her to a hospital that meets her needs.

To me this is a core of the issue, people should be using their own Dr for such things and not putting more work onto already over crowded and understaffed hospitals when there's another alternative.

That still does not conform with the legislative requirements and adds another unnecessary step to the process.

The end result is the same, you are referring the patient to someone who will perform the procedure or to someone who will refer to someone who will perform the procedure.

One step removed is sinful but two steps is fine?

How much do you think it would cost to replace the major Catholic hospitals in Melbourne with public replacements?

I'm not sure any government would ever undertake such an event because the costs would be enormous and we can't staff the hospitals we have now let alone new ones.

Like it or not the Private hospitals are vital to the nations health systems and for the services they provide to the public they do deserve funding.

Yes the costs would be significant but we would adjust. The benefits would eventually outweigh the costs. Costs which could be offset through the government's other services. A government supermarket chain for example. It would supply only the basic requirements for life in plain packaging or even loose. Same with clothing, transport, communications, even electronics. A modest profit in those areas used to fund those which aren't always profitable.

Now while the government would be providing a bus (both literally and figuratively,) there will be people who want to drive or take a taxi.

If the people who support abortion are so for it why don't they raise their own money and build their own facilities?

Most catholic facilities were started by donations from members who supported an idea.

The thing is that as abortion is legal the Government should provide the facilities for it at it's hospitals.

As many have said, to save on costs the government funds private hospitals in lieu of building another public one.

The result of that is that it is those private hospitals that the government are funding on behalf of all of us, not just the catholics and so the funding brings with it obligations.

The only question is whether you think those obligations override personal beliefs/values. IMO and according to the law they do. Others disagree.

 

[dardy_7]

No what it indicates is the atheist left sits around alot on computers to pontificate.

So definately not "overall people".

There's your arrogance again.

Every human has it's own truths, to say yours is more valid than the next persons shows how much you value your own self importance.

And yes I saw an intersting doco about some witch hunt/burning incidents.

What came out from it was it was actually unlikely it was very little to do with religion in this case as was always reported but simply it was socio-economically driven.

I.e the more affluent people on one side of town riding themselves of some of the poorer people on the other side of town.



http://www.hotchkiss.k12.co.us/hhs/English/webfolios/Alvey/Witches.htm

I guess you believe in old fairytales too hey

So the fact that the bill has already been approved in the lower house with little to no public scrutiny has no bearing on the word 'overall' that i used. This further shows your arrogance and tunnel vision that has resulted from the influence your religion has had on your life.
My 'truths' as you describe them have more bearing than those of any religion because through process's such as peer review and experimentation they have come to be proven as facts.

I'm glad you spent all morning looking up papers on witch burnings, really shows you have nothing better to do. I on the other hand went, had lunch, read the paper and even squeezed in some homework.
Now for the next one: The many Inquisitions. Yet another example of the catholic church trying to use it's power to get rid of something it doesn't like. Poor Galileo

 

[skipper kelly]

Basically there are two different types of liberty

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

'Freedom from' coercion--like the catholic doctor would claim,in that he shouldn't be required to act against his conscience--no matter who is paying the bills.

freedom of speech would also be an example of that type of liberty

To put it crudely right wing liberty.

'Freedom to' liberty--is freedom to have the opportunity of self determination--non discrimination laws would be an example.

'left wing' liberty,if you like.

The problem, as I see it ,with the latter is that it always suffers from subjective arbitrariness; that is it's type of manifestation is imposed according to who is in power.It's a type of enforced liberty,if that makes sense.

You comment drew attention to it's inherent weakness

Thanks evo. Its bloody frustrating if you ask me.

 

[skilts]

You're becoming more and more like Skilts everyday.

You vicious bastard. Evo, this is actionable.

 

[evo]

I've been called worse.

Not sure about you,but I've spent a lifetime ensuring I have no good name--or even a bad one.It is impossible to libel me.

 

[medusala]

The problem, as I see it ,with the latter is that it always suffers from subjective arbitrariness; that is it's type of manifestation is imposed according to who is in power.It's a type of enforced liberty,if that makes sense.

Whilst I bow to you and CM on philosophy I simply cant see how enforced liberty can be liberty at all. Sounds very Viet Cong like to me.

No libertarian could possibly be in favour of govt enacted human rights/equal opportunities law.

 

[evo]

Whilst I bow to you and CM on philosophy I simply cant see how enforced liberty can be liberty at all. Sounds very Viet Cong like to me.

No libertarian could possibly be in favour of govt enacted human rights/equal opportunities law.

There's pros and cons of both arguments.I do indeed lean to the 'freedom from' side.

At the risk of hijacking another thread,you may find this interesting.


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


57. The Art of Government

Through this: -
The more prohibitions there are,
The poorer the people become.
The more sharp weapons there are,
The greater the chaos in the state.
The more skills of technique,
The more cunning things are produced.
The greater the number of statutes,
The greater the number of thieves and brigands.

Therefore the sage says:
I do nothing and the people are reformed of themselves.
I love quietude and the people are righteous of themselves.
I deal in no business and the people grow rich by themselves.
I have no desires and the people are simple
and honest by themselves.

Tao Te Ching

 

[medusala]

At the risk of hijacking another thread,you may find this interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order

The Taoist Chuang-tzu said, "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

I am on board.

I also see it as relevant to this thread, the Micks can do as they please as far as I am concerned.

If you want a huge number of rules and regulations and statist targets, you only have to look at the NHS. Hopeless.

 

[evo]

60.

Governing a large country
is like frying small fish.
Too much poking spoils the meat.

 

[Chief]

Imagine a punter walks in to CBA for a mortgage and is way short of meeting their guidelines (and that of any bank).

do you really expect the bank employee to suggest a pawn shop or loan shark/solicitors cash?

Or should the bank employee use their discretion?

Didn't Jesus turn the money changers out of the temple?

In any case a home loan is HARDLY equivalent to a pregnancy. You just come up with these little straw men at a rate of knots don't you?

 

[Chief]

its questionable its a valid treatment option.

Now you're just making yourself look foolish. Again.

Imagine a farmer saying to a vet that his dairy cow has given birth to a bull calf and what should he do. Vet says "hand me the shot gun, I have a treatment option for you".

Oh God another one...

 

[Chief]

As pointed out above doctors do that already, ie ration care for a variety of treatments not just abortion

Based on medical, not religious grounds.

Are you suggesting alcoholics be given equal priority to liver transplants?

You have a book of these somewhere, right? 1001 Straw Men?

 

[Chief]

Sorry a doctors right to conscience does not trump a patients right to be informed of all available treatment options regardless of a doctors non-medical beliefs.

</thread>

 

[Contra Mundum]

The exact same justifications used by Islamic suicide bombers.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in those who believe a bunch of 2000 year old fairy tales are true.[/quote]

Polishing a s**t with verbosity - "simpleton" indeed

 

[Contra Mundum]

Basically there are two different types of liberty

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

'Freedom from' coercion--like the catholic doctor would claim,in that he shouldn't be required to act against his conscience--no matter who is paying the bills.

freedom of speech would also be an example of that type of liberty

To put it crudely right wing liberty.

'Freedom to' liberty--is freedom to have the opportunity of self determination--non discrimination laws would be an example.

'left wing' liberty,if you like.

The problem, as I see it ,with the latter is that it always suffers from subjective arbitrariness; that is it's type of manifestation is imposed according to who is in power.It's a type of enforced liberty,if that makes sense.

You comment drew attention to it's inherent weakness

Positive discrimination could be an example of one of the problems with positive liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin
Berlin contended that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers often equated liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when notions of positive liberty were, in the nineteenth century, used to defend nationalism, self-determination and the Communist idea of collective rational control over human destiny. Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline – those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and even humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism.

Sounds abit like the Neo-conservatives, eh.

Freedom from and freedom too - the more I think about it the more I think it is a bullshit distinction and a language game.

 

[Contra Mundum]

The Taoist Chuang-tzu said, "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

I am on board.

I also see it as relevant to this thread, the Micks can do as they please as far as I am concerned.

If you want a huge number of rules and regulations and statist targets, you only have to look at the NHS. Hopeless.

Sub prime mortgages and CDOs!!!!!!!

By it's nature liberty has to be enforced. Capitalism would not function without the existence of enforceable contracts - that is why people are loath to invest in emerging markets.

 

[evo]

Freedom from and freedom too - the more I think about it the more I think it is a bullshit distinction and a language game.

Semantics heretic.

Chomsky just crossed you off his xmas card list.

 

[JimDocker]

I have not read through all 15 pages so not sure what everyone else said, but to force somebody to do something that they object to totally on a moral basis has to be wrong.

When I was about 18, I actually drove a girl to a clinic to get an abortion. It was the younger sister of my girlfriend who was pregnant at 14 to a drop kick boyfriend. It was her choice to have the abortion and I could understand her predicament.

I also understand the predicament of the doctor. He/she does not see an abortion as a medical procedure like any other. He/she sees it as murder and to suggest that somebody should commit murder aspart of their job is horrific. Concientious objection has to be part of any civilised society.

My son who is about to turn one was diagnosed with a genetic deformity in utero. My wife and I made a decision that we were going to have the child and he is beautiful. We happen to have very loving and supporting families and financially we were in a position where we can take care of him. If other people made the decision at that time to abort, I would be disapointed but accept that we live in a society of many beliefs and I am definitely pro choice.

But pro choice should also apply to the doctors involved.