| |
|
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree.
Well, the patient bit is clearly fucked up. No, doctors don't get to choose who they'll treat - that should be as obvious as a doctor's right to refuse to provide certain types of elective treatment, if the treatment clashes with the doctor's morality.
Let me clarify the position I'm speaking from here. I was a evangelical Christian until 2-3 years ago; I was of the brand of Christian that would have objected to being forced to assist in certain types of treatments. While I have no real opinions about these treatments anymore - I'm very live and let live - I still understand the evangelical objections.
Ganesh, I can't tell you what bona fide theologians would say about the nature of sin, but I think I can tell you what the average evangelical doctor would think about performing these procudures: that it would be equivilant to assisting in a sin, and assisting in a sin is as good as commiting it.
There is no Christian Biblical basis to opt out of treating gays, anymore than there is a basis to opt out of treating anyone else who violates scriptural commandments. Otherwise, doctors wouldn't be able to treat anyone.
The Biblical basis for rejecting sex changes would centre around verses like "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you," from Jeremiah 1:5 and "I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works," from Psalm 139:14. The rationale is essentially this: God doesn't make mistakes. If you were born as one biological sex, then that's God's plan for your life. Any feelings that you are the wrong sex or gender arise from a corrupted sin nature and need to be repented of.
(Sidenote: I don't think Christians grapple with many of the complications arising from that, such as hermaprodites. So that's a problem for them to answer for.)
Therefore, any surgury that assists the person act upon that corrupted sin nature is also a sin. Treatment that alleviate the consequences of sin - such as treating a gay man with AIDS - is differant. The sin has already been commited, and it is the Christians duty to alleviate the suffering.
If this bill provides any medical personal rationale to refuse treatment to, say, a gay man dying of AIDS, then something is deeply, deeply wrong - because there certainly is no biblical rationale for that.
The bill needs to be very, very specific about the kinds of treatment that can be refused. |
|
|
