Weird how the exact same people saying this is the most terrible thing to ever happen in medical care were the same ones saying the unvaccinated shouldn't be treated in the hospital..........
My first thought, exactly. They have denied life-saving organ transplants, tranfusions and who knows the complete list of refused medical treatment to unvaccinated patients.
It's not about logic or consistency. The unvaccinated by dint of their unwillingness to go along to get along are a danger to the system and therefore should be removed from the system. Women who decide at the last minute to abort their child or parents that allow their children to be butchered to cosmetically alter them in the delusion that they are helping are not a danger to the system and are in fact helping the system along, in one way or another.
The four minutes of hate video is a prime example of how successful the psyop was. Just look at how well they did at fomenting divisiveness and hate. Fear is a powerful thing. It’s all so disgusting.
I guess, and it is a guess, that this could be about protecting people from themselves? No, young healthy teenager, you really don't want me to remove your genitals, in fact I refuse to do so and you will thank me for it in 5 years time? As ever, twitter is a toxic cesspit and MSM hysterical dog whistle.
I bet Gov. DeSantis eats puppies and kittens, too. And hates the environment, driving around in large SUV's! I'm just glad the MSM reported about this law instead of the massive bribery of the Biden Crime Family/Pedophile organization.
That "book-banning" line was used by various sexual curiosities against a group of concerned citizens running for the local school board. It was effective, as the Wokesters won a tremendous victory.
Danny Huckabee pounces!! You didn't read carefully, they don't have any evidence on Joe. He is obviously a paragon of virtue who just happens to have really sleazy family. There is no evidence that they were paying for access to Joe, they might have been paying for tips on how to get lots of exotic STDs, traffic women, and bang your dead brother's wife.
The purpose of this bill, after reading it, from my perspective, is to protect the doctors from being sued or having there licenses revoked for concietious objections. It exists for the most part to keep these same screeching banshees that say the law will kill people, just cause, from suing doctors, or demanding they give up there right to practice, because they wont perform procedures they want. YOU WONT KILL MY UNBORN BABY, YOUR A SAVAGE AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE!!!!!! CUT OFF THIS MANS PENIS RIGHT NOW YOU NEANDRATHAL!!!
Right, exactly. Having a medical license shouldn' mean you can be forced to violate your conscience. No one forces deli owners to carry pork, or says vegan restaurants have to serve steak. Why should a doctor have fewer rights than a deli owner?
This law is a vehicle for a healthcare provider to protect their right of choice in a healthcare organization.
It is sad that it has come to this point. Many doctors in Florida apparently used the excuse that they had no choice on how they treated patients during covid.
This law is the equivalent of giving the physicians back the right to provide individual care vs. what The Complex, their particular organization, healthcare insurance companies and the licensing boards would prefer:
For all patients to be treated the same way, through the lens of general public healthcare.
The side benefit is that a physician could object to being "forced" to provide a service/procedure in the face of their organization or The Complex's dictates (or implicit de facto policy) that violate a healthcare providers conscience. The trans issue and abortion issue are just two scenarios where a healthcare worker would be given back their rights without having to forfeit their livelihood for their conscience - or put in a situation where "the process is the penalty".
It is a bill that would enable healthcare providers a channel to have balls if they face another situation such as covid. It has merit because it would've protected and possibly helped millions from the scourge of the willful gross negligence of The Complex. Concomitantly, the bill can serve as a way to indirectly educate the public in a scenario like covid.
So it kills six birds with one stone (for issues that before the mid 90's did not exist)
1. A vehicle for objection
2. Protection from reprisal
3. To provide individual care
4. Autonomy to decide based on their conscience
5. To prevent another situation like covid
6. A potential platform to educate the general public by allowing a physician to have a "platform" to speak freely without penalty.
Completely agree with your analysis. Beyond abortion and “trans” medical procedures, this bill appears to be a direct response to the medical “misinformation” law (AB 2098) in California. While ostensibly targeting Covid “misinformation”, the CA law provides pretext and bureaucratic punitive/process architecture for expansion beyond only “misinformation” about Covid.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts.
What a weird nation you have, sometimes. Here, a doctor may deny a patient treatment on medical grounds and is only answerable to a panel of senior doctors as to why, should the patient file a complaint found warranted.
The patient is more or less free to choose their practitioner too (which sadly leads to mentally ill people "shopping around" for a psych that's easy to milk for prescriptions or transistors flocking to a publicly woke psychiatrist f.e.).
Last time we had any major media brou-ha-ha excepting Covid was when a nurse refused to assist in abortions, referencing her faith as a christian. This was denied and she was fired. This used to be standard practice: you leave your religion in the locker-room. Can't do that, find another job.
Sadly, nowadays in the name of mulitculturalism and anti-racism and inclusivity, jews and moslems and negros and - well, everyone but normal white swedes basically - can have race- and/or religion-based exceptions from this rule.
I guess I am with the "jews and moslems and negros." When the state places itself above an individual's conscience, the state makes itself a god. And I'm sure neither of us has to think back very far to come up with examples of things that were legal in our own countries that were abhorrent to the conscience of a good person. In America, the First Amendment defends the human right of living in accord with one's own conscience, one's own conception of divinity and a connection with that divinity. We've gotten many things wrong in the US, but we got that right.
By allowing someone to excuse themselves from following the same laws as everyone else based on their race or cult, they have been elevated as citizens of more worth than the rest.
Among some peoples, cutting up the genitals of small children are standard practice. Among white westerners it's sign of mental illness and psychotic sadism. So do we legalise it for people of the "right" race or not? You see what I mean.
I'm talking about opting out. People have the natural right to opt out of personal participation in practices that they find morally abhorrent. What society decides to legalize, criminalize, permit, etc., is another matter.
A plastic surgeon is not required to do endless numbers of facelifts on any particular patient. He can use his judgment and tell a patient he won't do a breast augmentation. Telling him he *can't* refuse to do breast implants on a man because his reason is moral rather than aesthetic is placing his conscience *below* other considerations.
I get that this might be tough for someone who lives in a country that wasn't founded on freedom of conscience, but in US courts, conscience rights generally prevail. They're well settled. It's only media subterfuge painting DeSantis as a radical. Check out the Becket Foundation for many, many, many examples of conscience rights being honored in the US. Seamus Hasson's book *The Right to Be Wrong* is also really good in explaining the underlying concepts.
You do know that in the world of political thuggery and media spin that is the Elephant and Ass Show, refusing to do an abortion, even on a fully developed fetus (i.e., a baby), is indeed refusing to treat women (particularly black women) and refusing to lop the breasts off a perfectly healthy little girl because she once played with a truck in the mud is refusing to treat transpeople.
Doctors are not there to have consciences. Doctors are there to make money for the medical corporation they work for.
My long time fishing buddy practiced family medicine for nearly 40 years. (He passed away prior to the scamdemic). It was his opinion that medicine had become "administrator controlled medicine for profit". He feared that most doctors had become no more than sales reps for the pharmaceutical industry.
I don't know what it's like where you're at, but the system I go to, they give the doctors maybe ten minutes with each patient. There is no way to be much more than a pill pusher in a system like that. And it's sad. Because I've met some very good doctors and PAs and nurses trying to help people while in that environment, and I don't know that you can really.
That's exactly what my friend was talked about. Administrators set the rules. All of the rules! Towards the end of his career, he accused "the evil bastards" of trying to twist diagnoses to facilitate prescriptions for certain drugs. Though I miss him terribly, I'm glad he didn't live to see what we did to medicine in the name of covid.
My take on it is that this type of law is exactly what the corporate left wing media salivate over because of the way it can be interpretted or propagandized to fit their narrative. In the case of DeSantis, it is the underscore from their point of view just how scary DeSantis is, even compared to the evil orange man. Unfortunately this bill fits their narrative perfectly, because even if you read the law you can see loopholes that may, indeed, allow certain types of doctors to refuse treatment. Also the providing things in writing, can increase the time from when treatment or a type of procedure is being requested as opposed to when it is actually needed, so there are some things that DeSantis is leaving himself open to in terms of being criticized. The corporate media have a very bad track record, thought, when it comes to blowing bills passed by DeSantis out of proportion and looking like the very leftist propagandists they are. During COVID they made claims that in keeping schools open DeSantis was 'killing children' and 'had blood on his hands', which didn't happen and Florida's kids are better off for it than say, California or New York kids. We all know about the 'don't say gay' bullshit and or course the again, complete nonsense about the 'dangers' of not allowing 'gender affirming care for children' but forgetting to mention just how dangerous puberty blockers--which cause sterilizations, cross sex hormones which have terrible side-effects and irreversable life changing surgeryies, performed on kids who can't even consent to getting a tattoo. Enough said.
The headlines paint any doctor who refuses any such specific treatment as a ‘racist, far right, extreme Christian’. Now as far as the last one, I’ve known doctors who refuse to undertake intimate procedures of the opposite sex who are Muslim and Christian. A doctor of the same sex does it instead.
And inversely, many patients have a preference for same sex doctors or nurse practitioners for such intimate procedures.
As far as conscience refusals, again the inverse, a patient may not want such a procedure to be undertaken by someone with a moral objection.
However, fundamentalist Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions as Abrahamic, all have laws against even seeing the nakedness of the opposite sex. Deuteronomy 18:9 may be interpreted as such. As far as abortion or euthanasia, again Deuteronomy 5v17 and the 10 commandments: thou shall not murder.
A law devised solely to discriminate against people based on race or sex in 2023 is absurd and constitutionally illegal. Hey media - 1950 called and want their headline back.
In a Soviet style totalitarian society, albeit with the requisite exceptions made for tastefully positioned party adherents, AKA the elites, conscience is not an option. Why do think they have gulags, comrade?
In the before times, when we weren’t all slaves to the global Billionaire Commie blob posturing as the United Socialist States of Amerika, a person was permitted to follow their conscience, particularly in circumstances of taking the life of another person. Some of these people were called “conscientious objectors”. Some of them were called “doctors” and they took an oath not to deliberately or cavalierly harm others in the course of practice of their chosen profession. Because they were trying to protect and preserve life, they might choose not to murder a baby or mutilate somebody who is mentally ill on a flimsy unscientific pretense. They might also choose to render care to somebody who was socially undesirable because of the very same promise. This is called having a conscience. Many people throughout history (and before written history)have done great things in the service of humanity because they followed their consciences. So we can’t have that now, can we?
The problem with being a "conscientous objector" to military service in times of war is that the objector is letting someone else take the bullet for them, someone not having or exploiting the same privilege awarded anyone self-identifying as in the governement-approved-religions-club.
That's not acting upon a conscience, that's being a selfish coward.
NB: this presupposes a just cause of course, such as defending against an invader. Not colonialist wars of capitalism or imperialism in general.
If the issue is muddled, then obviously whether or not being a conscientous objector is ethical is also muddled or even the more moral choice due to said muddle.
To make it even worse, conscience refers not only neuro-biological emotional responses such as sympathy/empathy but also cultural values. What would be lauded in one culture might be villified in another, depending on this. If obeying your samurai-lord is a paramount virtue, whatd you do when you are ordered t round up chinese peasants for Shiro Ishii's experiemnts? You obey orders of course, that's what's right according to your conditioned conscience. If instead you come from a culture putting a higher value on human life than following orders, you will stop the natives from committing suttee no matter that it is their culture; preventing the live incineration of an innocent takes precedence, according to your culture.
There's a good reason my ancestors desrcibed human lives as a weave of threads spun by the Norns. The tangle is a certainty.
I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t be a conscientious objector. I’msaying there is an historical precedent. And there are people with legitimate religious beliefs who won’t kill. Some COs drove ambulances in wars. They were under fire too.
The bigger issue is that physicians need autonomy to act in the best interests of the patient. When a physician is a servant of the state and not the individual patient, watch out.
Absolutely, but I felt compelled to ... how do you say, expand on the topic?
I cannot and will not accept that someone can say "magical sky genie says no boom-boom duty for me" and that's an argument to be respected.
I will accept that someone says: "It goes against my moral code", upon which they can be given latrine duty instead, if we are talking military matters.
Doctors should only be answerable to people with the same or better credentials, obviously - not politicians.
Weird how the exact same people saying this is the most terrible thing to ever happen in medical care were the same ones saying the unvaccinated shouldn't be treated in the hospital..........
https://rumble.com/v2nszys-fourminuteshate.html
My first thought, exactly. They have denied life-saving organ transplants, tranfusions and who knows the complete list of refused medical treatment to unvaccinated patients.
Never forget this!!
It's not about logic or consistency. The unvaccinated by dint of their unwillingness to go along to get along are a danger to the system and therefore should be removed from the system. Women who decide at the last minute to abort their child or parents that allow their children to be butchered to cosmetically alter them in the delusion that they are helping are not a danger to the system and are in fact helping the system along, in one way or another.
💥💥💥
The four minutes of hate video is a prime example of how successful the psyop was. Just look at how well they did at fomenting divisiveness and hate. Fear is a powerful thing. It’s all so disgusting.
I guess, and it is a guess, that this could be about protecting people from themselves? No, young healthy teenager, you really don't want me to remove your genitals, in fact I refuse to do so and you will thank me for it in 5 years time? As ever, twitter is a toxic cesspit and MSM hysterical dog whistle.
I bet Gov. DeSantis eats puppies and kittens, too. And hates the environment, driving around in large SUV's! I'm just glad the MSM reported about this law instead of the massive bribery of the Biden Crime Family/Pedophile organization.
Danny
Well, he bans books too because parents who want their kids exposed to Gender Queer don't know about bookstores or Amazon.
That "book-banning" line was used by various sexual curiosities against a group of concerned citizens running for the local school board. It was effective, as the Wokesters won a tremendous victory.
Danny Huckabee pounces!! You didn't read carefully, they don't have any evidence on Joe. He is obviously a paragon of virtue who just happens to have really sleazy family. There is no evidence that they were paying for access to Joe, they might have been paying for tips on how to get lots of exotic STDs, traffic women, and bang your dead brother's wife.
The purpose of this bill, after reading it, from my perspective, is to protect the doctors from being sued or having there licenses revoked for concietious objections. It exists for the most part to keep these same screeching banshees that say the law will kill people, just cause, from suing doctors, or demanding they give up there right to practice, because they wont perform procedures they want. YOU WONT KILL MY UNBORN BABY, YOUR A SAVAGE AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE!!!!!! CUT OFF THIS MANS PENIS RIGHT NOW YOU NEANDRATHAL!!!
Right, exactly. Having a medical license shouldn' mean you can be forced to violate your conscience. No one forces deli owners to carry pork, or says vegan restaurants have to serve steak. Why should a doctor have fewer rights than a deli owner?
when you read a bill or law yourself, you're likely doing more due diligence than the so called representatives who passed it in the first place
I am pretty sure that the impetus for this was medical freedom, based on what happened to doctors who did not toe the Covid line.
My default position is, if the MSM says something, it's a lie until proven otherwise.
Safe assumption
Which is why my default position has become to not read any MSM (Corporate Mouthpieces) stuff any more. Worse than a waste of time.
This law is a vehicle for a healthcare provider to protect their right of choice in a healthcare organization.
It is sad that it has come to this point. Many doctors in Florida apparently used the excuse that they had no choice on how they treated patients during covid.
This law is the equivalent of giving the physicians back the right to provide individual care vs. what The Complex, their particular organization, healthcare insurance companies and the licensing boards would prefer:
For all patients to be treated the same way, through the lens of general public healthcare.
The side benefit is that a physician could object to being "forced" to provide a service/procedure in the face of their organization or The Complex's dictates (or implicit de facto policy) that violate a healthcare providers conscience. The trans issue and abortion issue are just two scenarios where a healthcare worker would be given back their rights without having to forfeit their livelihood for their conscience - or put in a situation where "the process is the penalty".
It is a bill that would enable healthcare providers a channel to have balls if they face another situation such as covid. It has merit because it would've protected and possibly helped millions from the scourge of the willful gross negligence of The Complex. Concomitantly, the bill can serve as a way to indirectly educate the public in a scenario like covid.
So it kills six birds with one stone (for issues that before the mid 90's did not exist)
1. A vehicle for objection
2. Protection from reprisal
3. To provide individual care
4. Autonomy to decide based on their conscience
5. To prevent another situation like covid
6. A potential platform to educate the general public by allowing a physician to have a "platform" to speak freely without penalty.
Completely agree with your analysis. Beyond abortion and “trans” medical procedures, this bill appears to be a direct response to the medical “misinformation” law (AB 2098) in California. While ostensibly targeting Covid “misinformation”, the CA law provides pretext and bureaucratic punitive/process architecture for expansion beyond only “misinformation” about Covid.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts.
Spot on
What a weird nation you have, sometimes. Here, a doctor may deny a patient treatment on medical grounds and is only answerable to a panel of senior doctors as to why, should the patient file a complaint found warranted.
The patient is more or less free to choose their practitioner too (which sadly leads to mentally ill people "shopping around" for a psych that's easy to milk for prescriptions or transistors flocking to a publicly woke psychiatrist f.e.).
Last time we had any major media brou-ha-ha excepting Covid was when a nurse refused to assist in abortions, referencing her faith as a christian. This was denied and she was fired. This used to be standard practice: you leave your religion in the locker-room. Can't do that, find another job.
Sadly, nowadays in the name of mulitculturalism and anti-racism and inclusivity, jews and moslems and negros and - well, everyone but normal white swedes basically - can have race- and/or religion-based exceptions from this rule.
When I grew up, everyone understood this:
One rule for all, or no rules for anyone.
(Edited because of wonky spelling.)
I guess I am with the "jews and moslems and negros." When the state places itself above an individual's conscience, the state makes itself a god. And I'm sure neither of us has to think back very far to come up with examples of things that were legal in our own countries that were abhorrent to the conscience of a good person. In America, the First Amendment defends the human right of living in accord with one's own conscience, one's own conception of divinity and a connection with that divinity. We've gotten many things wrong in the US, but we got that right.
By allowing someone to excuse themselves from following the same laws as everyone else based on their race or cult, they have been elevated as citizens of more worth than the rest.
Among some peoples, cutting up the genitals of small children are standard practice. Among white westerners it's sign of mental illness and psychotic sadism. So do we legalise it for people of the "right" race or not? You see what I mean.
One rule for all, or no rules for anyone.
I'm talking about opting out. People have the natural right to opt out of personal participation in practices that they find morally abhorrent. What society decides to legalize, criminalize, permit, etc., is another matter.
A plastic surgeon is not required to do endless numbers of facelifts on any particular patient. He can use his judgment and tell a patient he won't do a breast augmentation. Telling him he *can't* refuse to do breast implants on a man because his reason is moral rather than aesthetic is placing his conscience *below* other considerations.
I get that this might be tough for someone who lives in a country that wasn't founded on freedom of conscience, but in US courts, conscience rights generally prevail. They're well settled. It's only media subterfuge painting DeSantis as a radical. Check out the Becket Foundation for many, many, many examples of conscience rights being honored in the US. Seamus Hasson's book *The Right to Be Wrong* is also really good in explaining the underlying concepts.
You do know that in the world of political thuggery and media spin that is the Elephant and Ass Show, refusing to do an abortion, even on a fully developed fetus (i.e., a baby), is indeed refusing to treat women (particularly black women) and refusing to lop the breasts off a perfectly healthy little girl because she once played with a truck in the mud is refusing to treat transpeople.
Doctors are not there to have consciences. Doctors are there to make money for the medical corporation they work for.
My long time fishing buddy practiced family medicine for nearly 40 years. (He passed away prior to the scamdemic). It was his opinion that medicine had become "administrator controlled medicine for profit". He feared that most doctors had become no more than sales reps for the pharmaceutical industry.
I don't know what it's like where you're at, but the system I go to, they give the doctors maybe ten minutes with each patient. There is no way to be much more than a pill pusher in a system like that. And it's sad. Because I've met some very good doctors and PAs and nurses trying to help people while in that environment, and I don't know that you can really.
That's exactly what my friend was talked about. Administrators set the rules. All of the rules! Towards the end of his career, he accused "the evil bastards" of trying to twist diagnoses to facilitate prescriptions for certain drugs. Though I miss him terribly, I'm glad he didn't live to see what we did to medicine in the name of covid.
My take on it is that this type of law is exactly what the corporate left wing media salivate over because of the way it can be interpretted or propagandized to fit their narrative. In the case of DeSantis, it is the underscore from their point of view just how scary DeSantis is, even compared to the evil orange man. Unfortunately this bill fits their narrative perfectly, because even if you read the law you can see loopholes that may, indeed, allow certain types of doctors to refuse treatment. Also the providing things in writing, can increase the time from when treatment or a type of procedure is being requested as opposed to when it is actually needed, so there are some things that DeSantis is leaving himself open to in terms of being criticized. The corporate media have a very bad track record, thought, when it comes to blowing bills passed by DeSantis out of proportion and looking like the very leftist propagandists they are. During COVID they made claims that in keeping schools open DeSantis was 'killing children' and 'had blood on his hands', which didn't happen and Florida's kids are better off for it than say, California or New York kids. We all know about the 'don't say gay' bullshit and or course the again, complete nonsense about the 'dangers' of not allowing 'gender affirming care for children' but forgetting to mention just how dangerous puberty blockers--which cause sterilizations, cross sex hormones which have terrible side-effects and irreversable life changing surgeryies, performed on kids who can't even consent to getting a tattoo. Enough said.
The headlines paint any doctor who refuses any such specific treatment as a ‘racist, far right, extreme Christian’. Now as far as the last one, I’ve known doctors who refuse to undertake intimate procedures of the opposite sex who are Muslim and Christian. A doctor of the same sex does it instead.
And inversely, many patients have a preference for same sex doctors or nurse practitioners for such intimate procedures.
As far as conscience refusals, again the inverse, a patient may not want such a procedure to be undertaken by someone with a moral objection.
However, fundamentalist Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions as Abrahamic, all have laws against even seeing the nakedness of the opposite sex. Deuteronomy 18:9 may be interpreted as such. As far as abortion or euthanasia, again Deuteronomy 5v17 and the 10 commandments: thou shall not murder.
Pretty cisnormative to assert that refusing to perform an abortion is targeting women. #smdh
Especially when they stubbornly refuse to kill those very young Women in the womb.
A law devised solely to discriminate against people based on race or sex in 2023 is absurd and constitutionally illegal. Hey media - 1950 called and want their headline back.
The law and healthcare? As long as I can still refuse to go I’m good.
In a Soviet style totalitarian society, albeit with the requisite exceptions made for tastefully positioned party adherents, AKA the elites, conscience is not an option. Why do think they have gulags, comrade?
In the before times, when we weren’t all slaves to the global Billionaire Commie blob posturing as the United Socialist States of Amerika, a person was permitted to follow their conscience, particularly in circumstances of taking the life of another person. Some of these people were called “conscientious objectors”. Some of them were called “doctors” and they took an oath not to deliberately or cavalierly harm others in the course of practice of their chosen profession. Because they were trying to protect and preserve life, they might choose not to murder a baby or mutilate somebody who is mentally ill on a flimsy unscientific pretense. They might also choose to render care to somebody who was socially undesirable because of the very same promise. This is called having a conscience. Many people throughout history (and before written history)have done great things in the service of humanity because they followed their consciences. So we can’t have that now, can we?
The problem with being a "conscientous objector" to military service in times of war is that the objector is letting someone else take the bullet for them, someone not having or exploiting the same privilege awarded anyone self-identifying as in the governement-approved-religions-club.
That's not acting upon a conscience, that's being a selfish coward.
NB: this presupposes a just cause of course, such as defending against an invader. Not colonialist wars of capitalism or imperialism in general.
If the issue is muddled, then obviously whether or not being a conscientous objector is ethical is also muddled or even the more moral choice due to said muddle.
To make it even worse, conscience refers not only neuro-biological emotional responses such as sympathy/empathy but also cultural values. What would be lauded in one culture might be villified in another, depending on this. If obeying your samurai-lord is a paramount virtue, whatd you do when you are ordered t round up chinese peasants for Shiro Ishii's experiemnts? You obey orders of course, that's what's right according to your conditioned conscience. If instead you come from a culture putting a higher value on human life than following orders, you will stop the natives from committing suttee no matter that it is their culture; preventing the live incineration of an innocent takes precedence, according to your culture.
There's a good reason my ancestors desrcibed human lives as a weave of threads spun by the Norns. The tangle is a certainty.
I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t be a conscientious objector. I’msaying there is an historical precedent. And there are people with legitimate religious beliefs who won’t kill. Some COs drove ambulances in wars. They were under fire too.
The bigger issue is that physicians need autonomy to act in the best interests of the patient. When a physician is a servant of the state and not the individual patient, watch out.
Absolutely, but I felt compelled to ... how do you say, expand on the topic?
I cannot and will not accept that someone can say "magical sky genie says no boom-boom duty for me" and that's an argument to be respected.
I will accept that someone says: "It goes against my moral code", upon which they can be given latrine duty instead, if we are talking military matters.
Doctors should only be answerable to people with the same or better credentials, obviously - not politicians.