Comments on: Medical civil liberties threatened by rollback of Provider Conscience Clause http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00183 from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:32:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dorothy robinson http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00183/comment-page-1#comment-4321 dorothy robinson Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:37:36 +0000 http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/?p=183#comment-4321 Robert Scovner's father refused to treat obstetrics patients after taking a look at an extremely obese patient. 72-year-old Dr Scovner has the right to treat or not treat any patient that he wishes. Robert Scovner’s father refused to treat obstetrics patients after taking a look at an extremely obese patient.

72-year-old Dr Scovner has the right to treat or not treat any patient that he wishes.

]]> By: Darrell Swope http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00183/comment-page-1#comment-2366 Darrell Swope Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:54:32 +0000 http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/?p=183#comment-2366 Every morning I awake wondering what Marxist President Obama will do today to further destroy our ailing Country. He has prioritized the greatest Medical system for complete destruction as we once knew it. More and more compassionate doctors are being fined or imprisoned while the rest face complex, time consuming rules if they are to continue to practice. This insanity must cease! Every morning I awake wondering what Marxist President Obama will do today to further destroy our ailing Country. He has prioritized the greatest Medical system for complete destruction as we once knew it.

More and more compassionate doctors are being fined or imprisoned while the rest face complex, time consuming rules if they are to continue to practice. This insanity must cease!

]]> By: T Rosenwasser MD http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00183/comment-page-1#comment-2363 T Rosenwasser MD Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:47:35 +0000 http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/?p=183#comment-2363 THERE HAS BEEN MUCH MISUSE OF THE WORD "RIGHTS" IN RECENT YEARS. RIGHTS ARE NOT CLAIMS ON OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY, LABOR OR CONSCIENCES. THEY ARE FREEDOMS TO ACT. LET US BE VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE MISUSE OF THIS WORD AND OPPOSE IT WHENEVER WE ENCOUNTER IT THERE HAS BEEN MUCH MISUSE OF THE WORD “RIGHTS” IN RECENT YEARS. RIGHTS ARE NOT CLAIMS ON OTHER PEOPLES’ MONEY, LABOR OR CONSCIENCES. THEY ARE FREEDOMS TO ACT.

LET US BE VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE MISUSE OF THIS WORD AND OPPOSE IT WHENEVER WE ENCOUNTER IT

]]> By: Robert Scovner, M.D. http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00183/comment-page-1#comment-2362 Robert Scovner, M.D. Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:22:52 +0000 http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/?p=183#comment-2362 The attempt to overturn laws that allow a medical provider to decline participation in providing or refering for abortions is a threat to the law human rights and conscience. The attempt to overturn laws that allow a medical provider to decline
participation in providing or refering for abortions is a threat to the law human rights and conscience.

]]> By: Kitty Antonik Wakfer http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00183/comment-page-1#comment-2359 Kitty Antonik Wakfer Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:38:24 +0000 http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/?p=183#comment-2359 The problem here is foundational (philosophical) and the closest this AAPS News of Day article comes to that foundational point is the sentence: "Apparently, the “right” of some to receive a service implies the obligation of others to provide it, regardless of their opinion about the morality or harmfulness of the procedure." All the rest of the arguments are secondary (actually immaterial), and they can be sidestepped one way or another by whoever they are given to. Additionally, one would have to individually address every example of a procedure/treatment that one or some practitioners do not want to include and what type of patient/client to which one wants or does not want to render service. And this foundational issue applies not just to health care, but to every aspect of life - food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation, entertainment, etc.... everything. This one point of implied obligation by the acceptance of "rights" needs to be recognized by each individual and addressed head-on without any backing away. Government in all its multiples of laws/rules/edicts creating/defining dozens of agencies/departments/bureaus/etc has done just what the Constitution has allowed it to - "to...promote the general welfare", since that can mean anything to anyone. This wording in the US Constitution has been one of its major holes. (For a more thorough critique see http://selfsip.org/critiques/billofrights.html ) What has developed since the writing of the Constitution, gradually at first and ever more rapidly, is a societal system in which some can and are designated in various ways to be the means to the ends of others. Wants are turned into rights, which some then are obliged to fill - government makes no money; it only takes and then distributes what remains after the bureaucratic expenditures. Those who will have their wants filled and those who must do the filling (most often individuals are in both groups to some degree by way of taxation) are decided by the rulers - those persons who have promised enough goodies to be elected by the majority (democracy) into positions to then call the shots, with the guns of enforcers available to see that those laws/rules/edicts/mandates/etc. are carried out. Now in essence it is the enforcers who are the key, since without them all those reams of paper holding all those billions of words (less than the trillions of dollars newly called for to be taxed and spent) would be worthless - except for papering the walls of all those government buildings. When large numbers of enforcers are discouraged from enforcing as a result of being socially preferenced against (negative social preferencing) by others, the unenforced laws/rules/etc will be useless - I do not expect any of the legislators and/or executives (President being the chief federal) to get out and enforce any laws they have written or signed. (For more explanation on social preferencing see http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html ) In this current mess of a society - the tattered remnants of a free market - the health practitioner who takes no government money in any form is the freest from government encumbrances in his/her (hir) field. S/he and hir client/patient voluntarily enter into an arrangement of consultation/service for an agreed direct payment. If government funding is accepted, there is no way to avoid the situation of the piper calling the tune, this "piper" being one with the legal use of force to back its demands. Kitty Antonik Wakfer Casa Grande AZ The problem here is foundational (philosophical) and the closest this AAPS News of Day article comes to that foundational point is the sentence:
“Apparently, the “right” of some to receive a service implies the obligation of others to provide it, regardless of their opinion about the morality or harmfulness of the procedure.”
All the rest of the arguments are secondary (actually immaterial), and they can be sidestepped one way or another by whoever they are given to. Additionally, one would have to individually address every example of a procedure/treatment that one or some practitioners do not want to include and what type of patient/client to which one wants or does not want to render service. And this foundational issue applies not just to health care, but to every aspect of life – food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation, entertainment, etc…. everything.

This one point of implied obligation by the acceptance of “rights” needs to be recognized by each individual and addressed head-on without any backing away. Government in all its multiples of laws/rules/edicts creating/defining dozens of agencies/departments/bureaus/etc has done just what the Constitution has allowed it to – “to…promote the general welfare”, since that can mean anything to anyone. This wording in the US Constitution has been one of its major holes. (For a more thorough critique see http://selfsip.org/critiques/billofrights.html ) What has developed since the writing of the Constitution, gradually at first and ever more rapidly, is a societal system in which some can and are designated in various ways to be the means to the ends of others. Wants are turned into rights, which some then are obliged to fill – government makes no money; it only takes and then distributes what remains after the bureaucratic expenditures. Those who will have their wants filled and those who must do the filling (most often individuals are in both groups to some degree by way of taxation) are decided by the rulers – those persons who have promised enough goodies to be elected by the majority (democracy) into positions to then call the shots, with the guns of enforcers available to see that those laws/rules/edicts/mandates/etc. are carried out. Now in essence it is the enforcers who are the key, since without them all those reams of paper holding all those billions of words (less than the trillions of dollars newly called for to be taxed and spent) would be worthless – except for papering the walls of all those government buildings. When large numbers of enforcers are discouraged from enforcing as a result of being socially preferenced against (negative social preferencing) by others, the unenforced laws/rules/etc will be useless – I do not expect any of the legislators and/or executives (President being the chief federal) to get out and enforce any laws they have written or signed. (For more explanation on social preferencing see http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html )

In this current mess of a society – the tattered remnants of a free market – the health practitioner who takes no government money in any form is the freest from government encumbrances in his/her (hir) field. S/he and hir client/patient voluntarily enter into an arrangement of consultation/service for an agreed direct payment. If government funding is accepted, there is no way to avoid the situation of the piper calling the tune, this “piper” being one with the legal use of force to back its demands.

Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Casa Grande AZ

]]>