SCOTUS FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT

[billisonboard]

Jul 3, 2023 13:19:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jul 3, 2023 13:01:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Did you voluntarily enter that specialty? Or did you enter it prior to the 1986 passage of EMTALA? Are you forced to stay with it? Or do you actually have choice?

I voluntarily chose it, but the majority of specialties deal with this in varying degrees
I did choose it after 1986
Forced, no. But the reality is there are very few choices open to us after we specialize. It would require training in a whole different specialty to get away from it entirely. The opportunity cost is too great, and I like the specialty I chose.
If I want to do Critical Care, I have no choice. I happen to be good at and I like it. So I take the good with the bad. But I have little sympathy for these complaints from people who CHOSE to open a public business, then look for ways around doing things that they object to.

I draw a slightly different line as tallguy and I were discussing earlier. "Public business" is just a little too generic for me. When they want us to separate their personal from business finances and then attempt to use their personal moral code instead of societal standards, that is when they lose my sympathy. One way or the other folks, your business is you or it isn't.

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 3, 2023 14:29:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 3, 2023 13:19:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

I voluntarily chose it, but the majority of specialties deal with this in varying degrees
I did choose it after 1986
Forced, no. But the reality is there are very few choices open to us after we specialize. It would require training in a whole different specialty to get away from it entirely. The opportunity cost is too great, and I like the specialty I chose.
If I want to do Critical Care, I have no choice. I happen to be good at and I like it. So I take the good with the bad. But I have little sympathy for these complaints from people who CHOSE to open a public business, then look for ways around doing things that they object to.

I draw a slightly different line as tallguy and I were discussing earlier. "Public business" is just a little too generic for me. When they want us to separate their personal from business finances and then attempt to use their personal moral code instead of societal standards, that is when they lose my sympathy. One way or the other folks, your business is you or it isn't.

I agree. USe the government to use advantage, you then need to follow the rules. Want to let your private beliefs run your life, keep your business private.

[laterbloomer]

Jul 3, 2023 14:29:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 3, 2023 13:19:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

I voluntarily chose it, but the majority of specialties deal with this in varying degrees
I did choose it after 1986
Forced, no. But the reality is there are very few choices open to us after we specialize. It would require training in a whole different specialty to get away from it entirely. The opportunity cost is too great, and I like the specialty I chose.
If I want to do Critical Care, I have no choice. I happen to be good at and I like it. So I take the good with the bad. But I have little sympathy for these complaints from people who CHOSE to open a public business, then look for ways around doing things that they object to.

I draw a slightly different line as tallguy and I were discussing earlier. "Public business" is just a little too generic for me. When they want us to separate their personal from business finances and then attempt to use their personal moral code instead of societal standards, that is when they lose my sympathy. One way or the other folks, your business is you or it isn't.

Let me preface this by saying I actually don't think anyone should have to treat someone that is being abusive towards them as they are trying to treat them. But that is different than providing critical care to someone that has been brought to a public facility unconscious or at least behaving at that moment. I don't believe in denying care because of race, religion or sexual orientation.
It is also different than creating content to promote something you totally disagree with. It is odd to me that we would even suggest it.

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 3, 2023 14:47:22 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jul 3, 2023 14:29:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I draw a slightly different line as tallguy and I were discussing earlier. "Public business" is just a little too generic for me. When they want us to separate their personal from business finances and then attempt to use their personal moral code instead of societal standards, that is when they lose my sympathy. One way or the other folks, your business is you or it isn't.

Let me preface this by saying I actually don't think anyone should have to treat someone that is being abusive towards them as they are trying to treat them. But that is different than providing critical care to someone that has been brought to a public facility unconscious or at least behaving at that moment. I don't believe in denying care because of race, religion or sexual orientation.
It is also different than creating content to promote something you totally disagree with. It is odd to me that we would even suggest it.

Great, we can let them die then. A new lease on life. If a racist refuses to have a specific doctor take care of them, we tell them too bad? If they are sexist, we just find them a man? I think we need a whole new code of ethics. Because the onus right now is on the medical professional to either treat that person, or if they morally cannot, find an alternative provider. The first provider remains responsible until an alternate can be found 

[billisonboard]

Can't say I know how to do it, but clearly we need to work on the sense of entitlement with zero acceptance of responsibility too many in this country display. It seems we have lost the whole choices have consequences concept. 

[Deleted]

Please refresh my memory on this.  I thought several years ago it was ruled at some level of the judiciary, that pharmacists could refuse to fill prescriptions for both bc and morning after pills if they felt it violated their personal/religious feelings.  I recall more than a few headlines about this.  Were those maybe state rulings?  

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 3, 2023 15:29:51 GMT -5 soupandstew said:

Please refresh my memory on this.  I thought several years ago it was ruled at some level of the judiciary, that pharmacists could refuse to fill prescriptions for both bc and morning after pills if they felt it violated their personal/religious feelings.  I recall more than a few headlines about this.  Were those maybe state rulings?  

No, you are correct. THey can refuse to fill them even if they are being used for other reasons; i.e. not contraceptive or abortion related. A study was just published that mifepristone could be used to treat endometriosis. Ban that medication and you could hurt a whole lot of women if this pans out

[Tennesseer]

Jul 3, 2023 15:29:51 GMT -5 soupandstew said:

Please refresh my memory on this.  I thought several years ago it was ruled at some level of the judiciary, that pharmacists could refuse to fill prescriptions for both bc and morning after pills if they felt it violated their personal/religious feelings.  I recall more than a few headlines about this.  Were those maybe state rulings?  

Cannot cite the law but if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription then someone else at that pharmacy has to be onsite to fill it for the customer.

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 3, 2023 15:35:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 3, 2023 15:29:51 GMT -5 soupandstew said:

Please refresh my memory on this.  I thought several years ago it was ruled at some level of the judiciary, that pharmacists could refuse to fill prescriptions for both bc and morning after pills if they felt it violated their personal/religious feelings.  I recall more than a few headlines about this.  Were those maybe state rulings?  

Cannot cite the law but if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription then someone else at that pharmacy has to be onsite to fill it for the customer.

Which is not enforced many times. Frequently only 1 pharmacist is on duty in smaller pharmacies. They are supposed to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. However, in many rural areas of red states, it can be quite a hardship for a patient to have to travel the long distances to pick up a prescription, not to mention that it may be difficult to find a pharmacist willing to fill it.

[Deleted]

Thank you pulmonarymd and Tennesseer.  The depths of human cruelty in the name of personal liberty never cease to amaze.  I'm surprised there are any pharmacists left at our local outlets what with armed robberies, crazies blaming them for the cost of meds, and fools picketing the stores.  I don't know what they get paid, but it's not near enough for the grief they get.  You don't understand your copay and deductibles?  Scream at the pharmacist.  You need some narcotics?  Point a gun at the pharmacist.  You don't like CVS selling bc?  Block the pharmacist from getting in the store for the start of their shift.  Hell, they could barely do their job delivering Covid or flu vaccines with the crazies out front and in the store.  

[pulmonarymd]

Yes, violence against medical personnel is increasing. Our nursing administration worked with our legislatures to get some bills passed to deal with the situation. Unfortunately, it has worsened with the general worsening of behavior. Bills was right about that. People forget that with rights comes responsibility.

People complain about drug costs to me all the time. The inhalers are ridiculously expensive, I agree. I do not control the cost. I cannot cure your asthma or COPD. The medications will control your asthma and help your symptoms. I have no other options. But it is my fault. 

[chiver78]

Jul 3, 2023 15:00:59 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jul 3, 2023 14:47:22 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Let me preface this by saying I actually don't think anyone should have to treat someone that is being abusive towards them as they are trying to treat them. But that is different than providing critical care to someone that has been brought to a public facility unconscious or at least behaving at that moment. I don't believe in denying care because of race, religion or sexual orientation.
It is also different than creating content to promote something you totally disagree with. It is odd to me that we would even suggest it.

Great, we can let them die then. A new lease on life. If a racist refuses to have a specific doctor take care of them, we tell them too bad? If they are sexist, we just find them a man? I think we need a whole new code of ethics. Because the onus right now is on the medical professional to either treat that person, or if they morally cannot, find an alternative provider. The first provider remains responsible until an alternate can be found 

I remember a college friend, who'd gone through EMT training back in HS and became licensed (certified?) when he turned 18 and was on the Boston Garden medical staff. he actually couldn't become an RA when I did, because policy was to hand over any medical cases to campus medical staff, and he couldn't do that b/c his license was rated higher than campus staff. 

[chiver78]

Jul 3, 2023 15:35:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 3, 2023 15:29:51 GMT -5 soupandstew said:

Please refresh my memory on this.  I thought several years ago it was ruled at some level of the judiciary, that pharmacists could refuse to fill prescriptions for both bc and morning after pills if they felt it violated their personal/religious feelings.  I recall more than a few headlines about this.  Were those maybe state rulings?  

Cannot cite the law but if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription then someone else at that pharmacy has to be onsite to fill it for the customer.

but is that federal law? or is it state-dependent?

[Tennesseer]

Jul 3, 2023 16:15:39 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jul 3, 2023 15:35:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Cannot cite the law but if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription then someone else at that pharmacy has to be onsite to fill it for the customer.

but is that federal law? or is it state-dependent?

States have various laws.  Good and bad.

How to refuse to fill a prescription tactfully

[chiver78]

tactfully? and yes, I clicked the link. that whole list is full of valid reasons someone wouldn't fill an Rx that do not include discriminating against protected classes or people that don't share your own opinions. #8 makes me wonder which evangelical organization made the list in the first place. 

[laterbloomer]

Jul 3, 2023 15:00:59 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jul 3, 2023 14:47:22 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Let me preface this by saying I actually don't think anyone should have to treat someone that is being abusive towards them as they are trying to treat them. But that is different than providing critical care to someone that has been brought to a public facility unconscious or at least behaving at that moment. I don't believe in denying care because of race, religion or sexual orientation.
It is also different than creating content to promote something you totally disagree with. It is odd to me that we would even suggest it.

Great, we can let them die then. A new lease on life. If a racist refuses to have a specific doctor take care of them, we tell them too bad? If they are sexist, we just find them a man? I think we need a whole new code of ethics. Because the onus right now is on the medical professional to either treat that person, or if they morally cannot, find an alternative provider. The first provider remains responsible until an alternate can be found 

I actually am fine with letting them die. They can find their own alternative.

[tallguy]

Jul 3, 2023 15:00:59 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jul 3, 2023 14:47:22 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Let me preface this by saying I actually don't think anyone should have to treat someone that is being abusive towards them as they are trying to treat them. But that is different than providing critical care to someone that has been brought to a public facility unconscious or at least behaving at that moment. I don't believe in denying care because of race, religion or sexual orientation.
It is also different than creating content to promote something you totally disagree with. It is odd to me that we would even suggest it.

Great, we can let them die then. A new lease on life. If a racist refuses to have a specific doctor take care of them, we tell them too bad? If they are sexist, we just find them a man? I think we need a whole new code of ethics. Because the onus right now is on the medical professional to either treat that person, or if they morally cannot, find an alternative provider. The first provider remains responsible until an alternate can be found 

Works for me.  Hospitals and doctors have a duty to provide care.  They cannot really force a patient to accept it unless they get a court order though, right?  If the hospital offers care and the patient refuses it, that's on them.  Choices have consequences.  If the patient doesn't want the black surgeon, fine.  Let him go.  It's not the doctor's problem at that point.

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 3, 2023 18:23:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 3, 2023 15:00:59 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Great, we can let them die then. A new lease on life. If a racist refuses to have a specific doctor take care of them, we tell them too bad? If they are sexist, we just find them a man? I think we need a whole new code of ethics. Because the onus right now is on the medical professional to either treat that person, or if they morally cannot, find an alternative provider. The first provider remains responsible until an alternate can be found 

Works for me.  Hospitals and doctors have a duty to provide care.  They cannot really force a patient to accept it unless they get a court order though, right?  If the hospital offers care and the patient refuses it, that's on them.  Choices have consequences.  If the patient doesn't want the black surgeon, fine.  Let him go.  It's not the doctor's problem at that point.

Except for that damned EMTALA law. That and malpractice suits. Do you really think the black surgeon who let someone die is going to fare well when the grieving family gets into court. They say what a great person they were, they cared for puppies and they gave money to charity, they were a god-fearing, church going person, who only acted that way because they were so sick and that the doctors and nurses mistreated and misunderstood him

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 3, 2023 18:11:20 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jul 3, 2023 15:00:59 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Great, we can let them die then. A new lease on life. If a racist refuses to have a specific doctor take care of them, we tell them too bad? If they are sexist, we just find them a man? I think we need a whole new code of ethics. Because the onus right now is on the medical professional to either treat that person, or if they morally cannot, find an alternative provider. The first provider remains responsible until an alternate can be found 

I actually am fine with letting them die. They can find their own alternative.

That flies in the face of thousand of years of medical ethics and is against medical ethics. It could lead to a moral hazard. I would personally have a problem letting someone die that I could have helped

[tallguy]

Jul 3, 2023 19:14:14 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jul 3, 2023 18:23:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Works for me.  Hospitals and doctors have a duty to provide care.  They cannot really force a patient to accept it unless they get a court order though, right?  If the hospital offers care and the patient refuses it, that's on them.  Choices have consequences.  If the patient doesn't want the black surgeon, fine.  Let him go.  It's not the doctor's problem at that point.

Except for that damned EMTALA law. That and malpractice suits. Do you really think the black surgeon who let someone die is going to fare well when the grieving family gets into court. They say what a great person they were, they cared for puppies and they gave money to charity, they were a god-fearing, church going person, who only acted that way because they were so sick and that the doctors and nurses mistreated and misunderstood him

Don't patients sign out now when they are leaving against medical advice?  Make that a requirement, and make it an affirmative defense against any charges or lawsuits.   

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 3, 2023 20:43:37 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 3, 2023 19:14:14 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Except for that damned EMTALA law. That and malpractice suits. Do you really think the black surgeon who let someone die is going to fare well when the grieving family gets into court. They say what a great person they were, they cared for puppies and they gave money to charity, they were a god-fearing, church going person, who only acted that way because they were so sick and that the doctors and nurses mistreated and misunderstood him

Don't patients sign out now when they are leaving against medical advice?  Make that a requirement, and make it an affirmative defense against any charges or lawsuits.   

Can’t be indemnified by that. They can still sue you despite signing out. Medical malpractice system doesn’t work that way.

[tallguy]

Jul 3, 2023 21:37:26 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jul 3, 2023 20:43:37 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Don't patients sign out now when they are leaving against medical advice?  Make that a requirement, and make it an affirmative defense against any charges or lawsuits.   

Can’t be indemnified by that. They can still sue you despite signing out. Medical malpractice system doesn’t work that way.

Not yet, which is why the second part is necessary.  Change the rules to make it an affirmative defense.  Hospitals and physicians should be shielded from lawsuits by people refusing their offers of care.

[NastyWoman]

Jul 3, 2023 12:22:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 3, 2023 12:16:42 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Honestly I wouldn't want someone opposed to me and my beliefs creating creative content for me. I'm betting no one would have ever sued her to provide her services. This was a publicity stunt. The way I understand the ruling the baker still needs to make the cake.

What type of sick mind would want to force another human being to do that. And it is also my understanding the cake would still be required to be baked.

The same type of "sick mind" that expects a pharmacist to dispense birth control pills prescribed by a doctor because, according to his  beliefs, birth control is against his religion. So that is ok as well?

[billisonboard]

Jul 3, 2023 22:14:25 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Jul 3, 2023 12:22:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What type of sick mind would want to force another human being to do that. And it is also my understanding the cake would still be required to be baked.

The same type of "sick mind" that expects a pharmacist to dispense birth control pills prescribed by a doctor because, according to his  beliefs, birth control is against his religion. So that is ok as well?

This current ruling requires it be a creative project requiring close contact, not dispensing a pill. So the customer would be working closely for an extended period of time with the person who is using their creative imagination to design a custom product. And the customer would be forcing them to do it under penalty of law.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 29, 2023 21:52:45 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

SCOTUS finally got it right. Discrimination for collage admission based on skin color is unconstitutional. This will be great for my and your grand-kids if they do well in school. The liberal media today was all aghast and crying like a 3yr old who dropped their lollypop in the dirt. And the conservative media was beaming immensely. Smiles everywhere.

This should have been settled a long time ago. For example, if I'm sitting in a math, physics, or any other college class of lets say 40 students, how does affirmative action make my learning better? Does having 30% people of color in the class make my learning easier? No.  

first of all, congratulations to you and Clarence for your big win.

second, it is college, not collage.  though i do like collage quite a bit as an art form.

third, there has not been a liberal media since some time in the 70's.

fourth, i am not sure this was ever an exercise to make college a better experience for white people.  i think it was designed to make college educated professions more accessible to people of color.

finally, i think the ruling is largely immaterial, as in the last 50 years college has gone from racist to classist.  that will affect white people far more than black, because there are far more of them in the US if we don't do something about it.

[ripvanwinkle]

Jul 4, 2023 22:18:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 29, 2023 21:52:45 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

SCOTUS finally got it right. Discrimination for collage admission based on skin color is unconstitutional. This will be great for my and your grand-kids if they do well in school. The liberal media today was all aghast and crying like a 3yr old who dropped their lollypop in the dirt. And the conservative media was beaming immensely. Smiles everywhere.

This should have been settled a long time ago. For example, if I'm sitting in a math, physics, or any other college class of lets say 40 students, how does affirmative action make my learning better? Does having 30% people of color in the class make my learning easier? No.  

first of all, congratulations to you and Clarence for your big win.

second, it is college, not collage.  though i do like collage quite a bit as an art form.

third, there has not been a liberal media since some time in the 70's.

fourth, i am not sure this was ever an exercise to make college a better experience for white people.  i think it was designed to make college educated professions more accessible to people of color.

finally, i think the ruling is largely immaterial, as in the last 50 years college has gone from racist to classist.  that will affect white people far more than black, because there are far more of them in the US if we don't do something about it.

how is the trolling exercise going?  six pages in less than a week = pretty well, i guess.

Trolling?? As the only conservative on this board probably except SoCal I believe what I write. A few days after the SCOTUS ruling came down one of my liberal college friends sent me this quote from Thomas Sowell - "When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination". I never heard of him but he is one smart guy. Here is more of his best quotes. He's right on. Y'all college people probably know all about him.

fee.org/articles/30-priceless-quotes-from-the-great-thomas-sowell/

I wonder what Martin Luther King would say if had he lived? What would he have thought on Affirmative Action? His famous quote - "My children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". Kind of sounds like he might have been against it. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 5, 2023 0:26:26 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Jul 4, 2023 22:18:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

first of all, congratulations to you and Clarence for your big win.

second, it is college, not collage.  though i do like collage quite a bit as an art form.

third, there has not been a liberal media since some time in the 70's.

fourth, i am not sure this was ever an exercise to make college a better experience for white people.  i think it was designed to make college educated professions more accessible to people of color.

finally, i think the ruling is largely immaterial, as in the last 50 years college has gone from racist to classist.  that will affect white people far more than black, because there are far more of them in the US if we don't do something about it.

how is the trolling exercise going?  six pages in less than a week = pretty well, i guess.

Trolling?? As the only conservative on this board probably except SoCal I believe what I write. 

ok, rip.  i apologize, and i will never make this claim again.
i have had this really nasty cold since Saturday, and it has put me in a bad mood.

please accept my apology.

[djAdvocate]

note: i am not going to take any time responding to the rest of your post, as i can't guarantee that it will not be tainted by my condition.  but i am presuming others will.  

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 5, 2023 0:26:26 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Jul 4, 2023 22:18:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

first of all, congratulations to you and Clarence for your big win.

second, it is college, not collage.  though i do like collage quite a bit as an art form.

third, there has not been a liberal media since some time in the 70's.

fourth, i am not sure this was ever an exercise to make college a better experience for white people.  i think it was designed to make college educated professions more accessible to people of color.

finally, i think the ruling is largely immaterial, as in the last 50 years college has gone from racist to classist.  that will affect white people far more than black, because there are far more of them in the US if we don't do something about it.

how is the trolling exercise going?  six pages in less than a week = pretty well, i guess.

Trolling?? As the only conservative on this board probably except SoCal I believe what I write. A few days after the SCOTUS ruling came down one of my liberal college friends sent me this quote from Thomas Sowell - "When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination". I never heard of him but he is one smart guy. Here is more of his best quotes. He's right on. Y'all college people probably know all about him.

fee.org/articles/30-priceless-quotes-from-the-great-thomas-sowell/

I wonder what Martin Luther King would say if had he lived? What would he have thought on Affirmative Action? His famous quote - "My children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". Kind of sounds like he might have been against it. 

You mean preferential treatment like white people and legacy admissions

[billisonboard]

Jul 5, 2023 0:26:26 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Jul 4, 2023 22:18:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

first of all, congratulations to you and Clarence for your big win.

second, it is college, not collage.  though i do like collage quite a bit as an art form.

third, there has not been a liberal media since some time in the 70's.

fourth, i am not sure this was ever an exercise to make college a better experience for white people.  i think it was designed to make college educated professions more accessible to people of color.

finally, i think the ruling is largely immaterial, as in the last 50 years college has gone from racist to classist.  that will affect white people far more than black, because there are far more of them in the US if we don't do something about it.

how is the trolling exercise going?  six pages in less than a week = pretty well, i guess.

Trolling?? As the only conservative on this board probably except SoCal I believe what I write. A few days after the SCOTUS ruling came down one of my liberal college friends sent me this quote from Thomas Sowell - "When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination". I never heard of him but he is one smart guy. Here is more of his best quotes. He's right on. Y'all college people probably know all about him.

fee.org/articles/30-priceless-quotes-from-the-great-thomas-sowell/

I wonder what Martin Luther King would say if had he lived? What would he have thought on Affirmative Action? His famous quote - "My children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". Kind of sounds like he might have been against it. 

With Affirmative Action, admission boards are looking beyond factors which have been shown to be prejudicial and are looking at the content of character of applicants.