University to student: Endorse being 'gay' or leave

[exoflare]

Perhaps you might reconsider that.

Whether being gay is very, very naughty or not, is orthogonal to the regulations that would deal with the handling of the client. She may be in contravention of that area of the code, in other words ‘unprofessional behavior’ and that would be a ‘bad thing’ whatever one’s position on whether gays are very, very naughty or not.

It’s a matter for the court to decide, obviously.

It’s possible I guess, but there’s nothing in the article that would imply that she did anything remotely like that.

 

[Swan]

It’s possible I guess, but there’s nothing in the article that would imply that she did anything remotely like that.

That’s really the trouble - there are few facts in the story and, because it is ongoing litigation, we aren’t likely to get the entire story until it comes out in court.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

All really depends on the code of professional ethics and whether one wants to be professionally qualified or not.

so can we extrapolate that to other professions? if the AMA decides that MDs have to preform 100 abortions in their residency is that just the way it is, and anyone who is pro-life can either do it or not be a doctor? if pharmacists decide that minor girls have a right to some new instant abortion pill thats OTC, they either sell it or quit?

ethics guidelines are only acceptable when they are ethical

 

[Kaninchen]

It’s possible I guess, but there’s nothing in the article that would imply that she did anything remotely like that.

It’s a ‘professional qualification course’, if one allows for a little ‘partisanship’ in the reporting of the case , the story rather suggests this kind of background.

 

[Kaninchen]

so can we extrapolate that to other professions? if the AMA decides that MDs have to preform 100 abortions in their residency is that just the way it is, and anyone who is pro-life can either do it or not be a doctor? if pharmacists decide that minor girls have a right to some new instant abortion pill thats OTC, they either sell it or quit?

ethics guidelines are only acceptable when they are ethical

You missed the point where I suggested that the question of the naughtiness or not of gays is orthogonal to the rules for handling a client. Whatever your, my or her view on gays, is irrelevant to that.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

You missed the point where I suggested that the question of the naughtiness or not of gays is orthogonal to the rules for handling a client. Whatever your, my or her view on gays, is irrelevant to that.

no, that was my point. at what point do professional guidelines(if they even apply here) get to overide your conscience or force you out of a carrer field.

 

[Kaninchen]

no, that was my point. at what point do professional guidelines(if they even apply here) get to overide your conscience or force you out of a carrer field.

While one’s own perspectives may suggest alternative potential ‘outcomes’, the code of ethics would determine how one handles the client.

If one’s ethics are opposed to the profession’s position on a class of clients, either one doesn’t ‘join’ or one joins and seeks to join ethics committees. If one’s ethics affects how one handles the client in such a way that it will lead you to contravene that part of the code, one really ought to be thinking of an alternative career.

So far we know very little about the case - we’ve heard (a little) from the plaintiff, we haven’t heard from the defendants.

 

[Soutane]

I do not know that we can call people evil, only their actions. One must be careful about their choice of words.

If you are referring the actions of the people here, which I believe is what you really meant, I would agree.

Sorry, I do not mean to sound pedantic, but for me I have to always work to separate the sin from the sinner. This type of exercise is important for me since I can fall into it easily, and that can lead to hate and bigotry.

Evil is as evil does.I am not judging them in so far as their salvation or damnation but I feel that these people are I repeat FUNCTIONALLY and DEMONSTRABLY evil.Period.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

While one’s own perspectives may suggest alternative potential ‘outcomes’, the code of ethics would determine how one handles the client.

If one’s ethics are opposed to the profession’s position on a class of clients, either one doesn’t ‘join’ or one joins and seeks to join ethics committees. If one’s ethics affects how one handles the client in such a way that it will lead you to contravene that part of the code, one really ought to be thinking of an alternative career.

So far we know very little about the case - we’ve heard (a little) from the plaintiff, we haven’t heard from the defendants.

i really cant see why this is even an issue. she wouldnt handle one specific instance. how is that any different than a MD not doing abortions. if doing 100 abortions was a recquirement to be a doctor, because their ‘ethical guidlines’ said so would all catholics have to stop being doctors? or not obey an unjust rule?

 

[Darryl1958]

yes but she has freedom of association and a right to a conscience. reffering to an equal counterpart is not typically considered unethical.

In the same way that Red China and the USSR were ‘democratic’, so too do Americans ejoy the a right to ‘freedom of conscience’ and ‘freedom of association’ and the like.

Activists judges and leftists on professional boards have decided that these rights indeed do look pretty on paper, and it is very good that people believe that what they have are rights such as these, but there is the interpretation leaves a whole lot to be desired.

Younger people do not even know what kind of freedom people in their country once had, and so on it will go.

 

[Darryl1958]

i really cant see why this is even an issue. she wouldnt handle one specific instance. how is that any different than a MD not doing abortions. if doing 100 abortions was a recquirement to be a doctor, because their ‘ethical guidlines’ said so would all catholics have to stop being doctors? or not obey an unjust rule?

It is an issue because you still have a sense what such freedoms such as freedom to conscience are. For a generation raised with big government as their big brother, such freedoms have never existed for them. Ethics and freedoms are defined by the policies that institutions set forth. they reside in the institution and not in the individual.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

It is an issue because you still have a sense what such freedoms such as freedom to conscience are. For a generation raised with big government as their big brother, such freedoms have never existed for them. Ethics and freedoms are defined by the policies that institutions set forth. they reside in the institution and not in the individual.

i’m taking it as a complement, but it seems you think im older than i am. for the record im 26, and i think im part of the big brother generation, i just know better than to trust it.

 

[Kaninchen]

i really cant see why this is even an issue.

Perhaps because what you’ve decided is the issue, isn’t. You want it to be a story of a poor heroic Christian student who hasn’t done a thing wrong being persecuted for her sincerely held beliefs by evil secular humanists - there are probably people on the other side who just think it’s a story from the ‘mouth-foamer’ internet press about some creepy Christian who hates gays and is on a crusade against her sane and sensible educators.

I’m just wondering whether beneath the reporting it’s about client handling.

she wouldnt handle one specific instance.

‘Allegedly’. We only have her word for that as being the issue and, until there is more evidence, it’s all conjecture.

how is that any different than a MD not doing abortions. if doing 100 abortions was a recquirement to be a doctor, because their ‘ethical guidlines’ said so would all catholics have to stop being doctors? or not obey an unjust rule?

This is ‘by the by’, the question I raised is whether she’d breached the professional code on handling patients.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

This is ‘by the by’, the question I raised is whether she’d breached the professional code on handling patients.

yes and i asked that even if she did was that wrong. we arent bound to abide unjust laws. my question about doctors being forced to do abortions was so i could understand your side. i wanted to know if you think that the rules always trump the conscience, or if our dignity as people is more important and shouldnt hold us back from certian professions, especially those where we can help people.

 

[Kaninchen]

yes and i asked that even if she did was that wrong. we arent bound to abide unjust laws. my question about doctors being forced to do abortions was so i could understand your side. i wanted to know if you think that the rules always trump the conscience, or if our dignity as people is more important and shouldnt hold us back from certian professions, especially those where we can help people.

So, what you’re saying is that the dignity of the client is less important than the potential affront to the dignity of the professional and that a code of ethics not allowing you to say, for example, ‘you are a naughty, naughty, sordid gay person and will burn in hell so I’m not having anything to do with you’ is the equivalent to forcing Catholic doctors to perform abortions or the road to forcing Catholic doctors to perform abortions?

 

[goofyjim]

So, what you’re saying is that the dignity of the client is less important than the potential affront to the dignity of the professional and that a code of ethics not allowing you to say, for example, ‘you are a naughty, naughty, sordid gay person and will burn in hell so I’m not having anything to do with you’ is the equivalent to forcing Catholic doctors to perform abortions or the road to forcing Catholic doctors to perform abortions?

If somebody said to me I will burn in hell I would say I’ll enjoy his company. For that person passing judgement merits hell himself.

 

[Kaninchen]

If somebody said to me I will burn in hell I would say I’ll enjoy his company. For that person passing judgement merits hell himself.

It wouldn’t normally be considered within the bounds of professional conduct, however.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

So, what you’re saying is that the dignity of the client is less important than the potential affront to the dignity of the professional and that a code of ethics not allowing you to say, for example, ‘you are a naughty, naughty, sordid gay person and will burn in hell so I’m not having anything to do with you’ is the equivalent to forcing Catholic doctors to perform abortions or the road to forcing Catholic doctors to perform abortions?

i dont see how you drew that conclusion.

people have equal inherent dignity, i think by making a referal to an equally qualified collegue she was able torespect the clients dignity, have their problem addressed without compromising her own. why can’t both win, why make her back down.

nobody ever said she was condeming a gay or their choices, just that she didnt want to help propogate it. if i were in that position i wouldnt want to help the person in a way that would lead them to sin either, making myself part of it. remember we participate in others sins(and gay sex is a sin)
By **counsel **
By command
By **consent **
By provocation
By **praise or flattery **
By concealment
By partaking
By **silence **
By defense of the ill done

it seems counseling him on these issues in any way except to try and get him to abandon this lifestyle or live celibately would cover this.

the abortion thing, which you still havent actually answered, was a hypothetical, to see if you placed the client/patients ‘rights’ and the code of ethics over a doctors conscience in all circumstances. like i said before i asked to try and better understand your position. all continually dodging it tells me is that you either:

1. you do agree that the professional has no rights the governing board doesnt give them, or that
2. you dont think #1 but realize it pokes a large hole in your argument and cant respond

now you seem quite capable of intelligent debate so i doubt that is the case, but it is where i’m led based off what you’re giving me.

 

[Kaninchen]

i dont see how you drew that conclusion.

It was a conjectural counter to your conjectural ‘road to compulsory abortions’.

nobody ever said she was condeming a gay or their choices, just that she didnt want to help propogate it.

You’re basing all this on assuming that the report of the issue is what it’s all about, I’m suggesting that there’s likely to be more to it and it’s something that will emerge in court.

the abortion thing, which you still havent actually answered, was a hypothetical, to see if you placed the client/patients ‘rights’ and the code of ethics over a doctors conscience in all circumstances. like i said before i asked to try and better understand your position. all continually dodging it tells me is that you either:

Actually, it reflects the fact that I consider that your raising of the abortion issue is a complete irrelevance to an argument about how clients are handled and that thinking that beating people over the head with ‘either you agree with my position or you’re going to make doctors perform abortions’ (or whatever) is not going to work with me.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Actually, it reflects the fact that I consider that your raising of the abortion issue is a complete irrelevance to an argument about how clients are handled and that thinking that beating people over the head with ‘either you agree with my position or you’re going to make doctors perform abortions’ (or whatever) is not going to work with me.

see i dont think its an argument over how clients are handled, or at least that it shouldn’t be. i think its more about how the professional is handled in this situation. which is why i made a comparasion to another group of profesionals- doctors. i stated what would seem to be clearly an illegal breech of their rights(forced abortions) to draw the comparasion to this student having their ethics attacked.