Muslim medical students get picky

This is like Catholic hospitals refusing to dispense birth control pills, even to treat other illnesses. Or Christian pharmacists refusing to dispense the Plan B pill.

Health care professionals need to either do their job for all, even those who disagree with their religion; or else find another line of work.

 

Perhaps, but it really isn't different than Muslim students feeling that treating sexually transmitted diseases or alcohol related illness is against their religious values. Regardless of the origin of such convictions, they are deeply held. Still, I believe either doctors and other health care providers should treat all or find a job that won't put them in conflict with their convictions.

 

No, I don't imagine a podiatrist would be called upon to do many abortions.

 

Also, a simple solution to this problem is for patients with such medical conditions to not go to one of these doctors for treatment. And for people who want birth control pills to buy them from a pharmacy or a doctor's office that sells them.

Private businesses should not be forced to sell any particular product or to provide any particular service.

 

I think that the main problem is that these people should not be granted a license to practice medicine. If you will not complete the curriculum and pass the final exam, you should not graduate.

I would certainly expect a doctor to learn about conditions they don't like in order to help cure them. Imagine a person who wants to be a doctor but who doesn't believe in heart disease, and therefore doesn't study that portion of the text. Preposterous!

I question the smarts of anyone who is unable to see this and certainly would not see any doctor this ignorant.

 

Agreed. They would have to go to a different school to get a different kind of degree, such as a
M.M.D(Doctor of Muslim Medicine).

 

Another simple solution is to put the question back on the application:

Are you a Muslim and therefore offended by ........

If the answer is yes, then no admittance to school.

Sorry, find yourself another country you can push over.

My wife used to work in Saudi Arabia, and so did my brother. And they say most, if not all Muslims, have a secret compartment in their homes where they have on stock "stateside" alcoholic drinks.

Hypocrites !

 

That's the best solution. I don't think I can say either way that they should be forced to practice where they feel they shouldn't, or that they should not practice at all. Different regions of this world have different cultures. One culture may view something as ethical while another may view it as supporting immorality.

I say practice your medicine with your people, otherwise, as Magnetic Poles said, practice all medicine with all people. But you may have to find a different school to give you your education.

 

I know we'ver covered this before, but do you make that same claim when, for instance, a factory I worked in years ago required overtime of most lines on a Saturday, that a sabbatarian must work that day or be fired or quit, and find another job?

As to the medical profession, must any OB/Gyn perform an abortion if requested or get into another trade? That certainly appears to be what you are saying.

 

Health care professionals need to not take part in the gross slaughter of unborn children. Those that do and never repent will answer to God. there should be a special place in hell for such.

 

There is

no requirement for a pharmacist to sell whatever drug there is available. The pharmacist is a private citizen running a private business. We have a pharmacist here that refuses to accept any prescriptions from anyone on welfare. Told them to take their business somewhere else. Is that wrong?

As far as these Muslim medical students, perhaps they should have a gut check moment to see if this career field is actually what they are cut out for. I know if my religious beliefs stood in the way of me doing my job, Id find another job. Why does the world have to bend just because they find it offensive?

Ignoring studies on exisiting diseases due to religious convictions is akin to sticking your head in the sand.

 

Yes in most cases. The needs of the business require certain things of employees.

Good question. I think the principle is close to the same as the Muslim students not treating STDs. However, I understand some people think conception constitutes the creation of a life, and so this one is open to debate. I don't ascribe to that particular view, but could probably make a concession here.

Yes, it is definitely wrong. This pharmacist is out of line, and seems like a jerk. And actually, some juridictions DO require a pharmacist to fill any legal prescription, as well they should. Particularly in small towns with no other options. After all, pharmacists are licensed by the government, and therefore have many regulations. Various drug store chains also have this as an employment requirement. IMO, any pharmacist who refuses to fill a valid Rx should be fired and have his license suspended.

 

I assume you realize that postiion, 'in most cases,' is in conflict with current court rulings, which say "reasonable accomodation" must be made, including one's day of worship and clothing and hair regulations unless they conflict with safety standards.

You can make a "concession" to one religious view, but not another? Okay, but so much for equality of beliefs.

 

No, the operative word is "reasonable".

I would probably make that concession not based on religious view, but rather (as I said) the fact that some believe a blastocyst is a life. That is a bit more serious than a head scarf. You do know many people object to abortion for non-religious reasons, don't you?

 

Frankly no. Who is an example? And even if not religious, per se, would it still be morals, and thus you do accept 'legislating morality' in some sense? Or, if you're going argue there is no 'legislating' [a term used corrsespondingly to "Congress shall make no law...."], then a service provider imposing his/her own morality over a potential customer?

 

I can't name anyone that I know of that you would recognize. However, I have at least two personal friends who are not religious and base such a view on their interpretation of the biology involved rather than on a religious perspective.

Notice again, I said it would be a concession. This comes from my belief that not everything is binary. The abortion issue is one such issue for me. I think the conception = a life view is incorrect and unsupportable by biology or scripture, but recognize people of good faith can, and do, disagree.

 

Can "people of good faith" not also believe they should have nothing to do with STD's? And if it is true that 'conception = life' is not supported by biology [and in scripture, the destruction thereof is subject to civil penalty], then how can any concession be made unless one also could be made that STD's are a 'just retribution' that a doctor need not treat?