“ Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has signed the “Protections of Medical Conscience Act,” a law that allows healthcare providers or payors to deny service on the basis of “a conscience-based objection,” including any ethical, moral, or religious beliefs.”
Does this also mean that atheists could deny providing emergency medical treatment for a theist? Do you think any would/should?
That’s going to be struck down pretty quick if the American Medical Association has any say in the matter …
I sure hope so, @Calilasseia!
I can foresee this one tanking for at least one reason.
This law is in violation of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The USHR is a constitutive document of the United Nations, and by extension, applies in this manner to all 193 signatories of the UN Charter. Oh, and since the USA was one of the initial states voting in favour of the UDHR back in 1945, it’s going to look bad if florida does implement this law.
Better still, in 1976, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, granted legal status to most of the Articles of the UDHR, and the USA is a signatory thereto.
This latest piece of DeSantis mischief should crash and burn even without the need to bring in the sledgehammer of international law, but if anyone wants to use this information accordingly, I’ll consider my work done. 
I can’t help but wonder if only the fundamental theists would use this law.
Theists, please chime in, would you use this ruling to deny medical aid to someone whose life you find objectionable?
And the insanity continues… Where in the fc are we headed?
In a 1986 debate about song lyrics on a show called Crossfire, Frank Zappa warned that the country was headed toward a fascist theocracy.
I miss Frank Zappa.
I have worked in healthcare for over 30 years, and I have a lot to say about this . . . as I have experienced a crisis of conscience on more than one occasion.
Paramedics can “Baker Act” someone . . . which means that we transport a person (who is a danger to self or others due to mental illness) against their will.
We were often contracted to abduct gay teenagers (with parental complicity) to conversion therapy, as the ambulance ride was to “shatter the denial” that homosexuality is harmful.
The conversion “therapists” would hold up stats showing that gay people are more prone to suicide, so the ambulance ride was also deemed a “neccesary precaution.”
Conversion therapy often utilized electricity, sleep deprivation, isolation, beatings, and so forth to “cure” homosexuality.
So, I reached a point in my ethical development where I wished to become a conscientious objector, and the problem was that I couldn’t find a minister, priest, or rabbi willing to give me a letter (which was a requirement).
So . . . I just didn’t want to do my job.
If I can’t find a religious figure to sign off on a letter, then I can’t claim a religious objection.
I fucking hate organized religion. See below:
So . . . I wonder if Ron DiSantis’ law allows me to follow my conscience without an endorsement from a pastor.
I will soon be a nurse (if all goes well), and I wonder if I’ll be able to object to giving dexamethosone to pregnant women.
Dexamethasone is a very useful (but dangerous) drug that, supposedly, will prevent a pregnant woman from giving birth to a lesbian.
It doesn’t work to prevent gay men from being born, but it supposedly prevents a female fetus from becoming a lesbian.
This drug is dangerous and carries a risk of birth defects . . . but homosexuality is so bad that the risk to the fetus is worth it. See below:
Whenever I’ve objected to such things, I’m told that if I don’t belong to an organized religion (although I consider myself a Jew), then these things shouldn’t bother me because I don’t have a moral compass.
So . . . I just don’t want to do my job.
@Kevin_Levites, are you able to move to a state that isn’t a theocracy?
Not really.
I acually like Florida . . . except for the guns and theocratic politics.
If a friend got a internet ordination (they are really easy to get), could they sign off on it?
I’m not sure. It would depend upon the employer.
My point in bringing up these conflicts is that sincere, moral objection goes both ways . . . and there doesn’t seem to be a legal framework to give agnostics and atheists parity with the theists in these types of disputes.
The idea that overshadows this whole discussion is the conviction that atheists lack a moral compass . . . so we are not entitled to claim the moral high ground when I object to participating in gay conversion therapy, or when I object to giving dangerous drugs to pregnant women to prevent them from having a lesbian.
Thank you, BTW, for the validation and for not being dismissive.
No chance of that my friend. Have a hug,
Wouldn’t such laws violate the 1st amendment? Or am I being a naïve foreigner?
No chance of that my friend. Have a hug,
Have you thought, once qualified of joining either Medecins sans Frontieres or MercyShips.org? At least util the the theocrats realise their futility?
There are different ways of interpreting the 1st Amendment.
For example, Alcoholics Anonymous requires a belief in a “higher power,” and the court can require someone to attend A.A. meetings if one drives drunk.
Also, there are religious organizations that run adoption services, and these organizations can refuse to work with gay couples . . . even though gay marriage is legal, and there are children that need loving homes.
Also, the military screens out recruits that are “spiritually unfit,” and atheistic soldiers do not get promoted. One of the rationales behind this policy is that a leader should be expected to pray with his men before a battle, and any sarcasm or insincerity during this process may hurt morale and cost lives (or so the argument goes).
There are similar arguments that apply to my work as a paramedic, and there is the idea that things like abducting children to force them into gay conversion therapy shouldn’t bother me if I’m not religious (as I have no moral compass), or I should be in favor of gay conversion therapy if I am religious.
So I have no grounds to refuse to participate in dragging a screaming, crying adolescent to a brutal program of emotional, physical, and verbal abuse to “make him a real man.”
And yes, I think mercy ships might be a very good idea.
Thank you again.
As always, I want to thank everyone for the moral support. It really does mean a lot.
With the Supreme Court stacked with six conservative Catholics who have shown a recent inclination to rule in favor of religious issues, I wouldn’t count on any lower court decision sticking.
Not any longer. Not for a while now. They must provide a secular alternative. The real problem is that AA is so much easier because every Church in town has a meeting. The secular alternatives are few and far between.
“It is essential for anyone working with individuals struggling with addiction or involved in training addiction counselors to be aware of longstanding U.S. higher court rulings, dating back to the 1990s. These rulings declare that requiring individuals in the judicial system, such as prison inmates or people on probation, to attend 12-step meetings or 12-step-based treatment is a violation of their First Amendment rights. (That does not mean many courts are not functioning in the dark ages.”
WOW! Being from California, I had no idea how backwards the rest of the country was. I was questioning whether anyone actually had to take a child, against their will, to conversion therapy. If your story did not completely blow people’s minds, this map will. FUCK ME!
This is insane!