Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus.
His moral stance (which he is entitled to hold, but not enforce) is irrelevant. If his morals are that important to him, then he shouldn't be working in a place where those things can cross paths.
|
That decision lies with his employer, who I have said, is well within his rights to dismiss this employee if he deems appropriate.
Quote:
|
Doctors have to stand by constantly and let people kill themselves because of the wishes of individual patients, and sometimes because of ridiculous reasons like the blood transfusion issues with Jehovah's witnesses. These are people that dedicate their lives to the oath they make. Yet their moral stances don't overrule the wishes of the individual.
|
In this case, the doctor has to comply with their wishes by NOT acting; by not forcing an action upon them. A doctor would not, for example, obliged to euthanize someone (in countries where this is legal) if they don't want to perform that action. Another doctor would do it.
Quote:
|
He absolutely has every right to feel uncomfortable about serving a pregnant woman, he has absolutely no right to act upon that.
|
For the third or fourth time; he did not act upon anything, he explicitly did the opposite; he did not DO something against her wishes, he REFUSED to do something that she wished. There is a very clear distinction between those that you seem to be habitually overlooking or ignoring.