Would you support Jehova's witnesses making blood transfusions not covered under their medical plans?

[interestedman]

What if a big company was run by a Jehova’s witness and they insisted that since it was against their religion to do blood transfusions they would make sure that it wasn’t covered for any of their employees. Would you support this?

Rastafarians are against amputation. If a big company was run by a Rastafarian do you think he should be able to take amputations off the health care of his employees that don’t share his religious beliefs?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If there were large Jehova Witness organizations that owned large business (or small businesses) that employ members of other faiths, and they did not cover transfusions due to religious beliefs.

Worst case scenario would be that the emergency transfusion would be given to the patient and then other means of payment would be necessary. It could be through the hospital with a payment plan of sorts, or through emergency medical reimbursement of some sort.

But, since blood transfusions are medically necessary, they aren’t like the pack of pills that are totally elective.

Really, my son needed a shot for RSV, and the insurance company denied it because his birth weight (2pounds 13 oz) was good enough for them to deny the coverage.

And, unlike the pill, I could not purchase it myself. The vendor would not release it without insurance picking it up.

Another irony, I take prometrium to regulate my cycles, because I cannot (and will not)take the pill. It’s a medicine that is necessary. I pay 70 bucks for 30 pills.

 

[manualman]

The argument behind the question is “Shouldn’t we just all ignore religion based morality and set our government policies on what the majority wants?” Right? No? ARE there basic moral principles that must guide governmental policies or is everything up for grabs on majority vote?

I would assert that we had BETTER keep in mind the presence of objective right and wrong or we will soon be in the hands of totalitarian leaders who will manipulate their way to a majority power and then use that to dominate the weak.

So the question is NOT one of whether we can make exceptions for any and all religious ideas, but one of identifying the public good intended by the government policy and then evaluating objections to it individually based on the merits of their arguments. Where an objection is solidly and clearly based on basic human rights, the policy may need to be overturned entirely (i.e. Roe v Wade is an example). Where an objection is reasonably disputed and there are reasonable alternatives, exemptions should be granted (buy your own damm contraception, freeloader!). Where an objection is based on an arbitrary religious teaching and the consequences of exemption would likely be severe, it may be warranted to deny the exemption (Hey, smokin’ peyote is part of our religion, dude!).

In answer to your question, the JW blood transfusion issue would fall in the third category. They should be allowed an exemption for their own institutions (church employees, schools, etc), but individual employers should be required to provide the coverage. A reasonable accomodation would be for that employer NOT to cover it in the basic coverage, but offer it as an extra cost rider to individual insurance policies.

So what about a catholic employer? IMO, this falls in the second category. Reasonable people can reasonably dispute the way in which contraception defies the basic moral order of society. Since it’s disputed, there must be a compelling public health interest to in order for government policy to override the religious conscience of an employer. In this case, there is a clear and simple alternative to contraceptive coverage: go buy your own you freaking freeloader. Condoms are what, $5 for a 3 pack at every drug store and gas station in America? You can seriously keep a straight face and tell me it is a compelling public health need to make hormonal contraception “free” for all? Give me a break.

 

[hannajomar]

What if a big company was run by a Jehova’s witness and they insisted that since it was against their religion to do blood transfusions they would make sure that it wasn’t covered for any of their employees. Would you support this?

Rastafarians are against amputation. If a big company was run by a Rastafarian do you think he should be able to take amputations off the health care of his employees that don’t share his religious beliefs?

This is why it doesn’t make much sense for an employer to provide health insurance. My employer doesn’t provide my car, my house, my clothes, or my food. It is up to me to purchase those items in accordance with my morals. I don’t see why health insurance should be different. This way, if I am Catholic or a Jehovah witness, I can purchase health insurance in accordance with my beliefs, no matter where I work.

 

[Rence]

What if a big company was run by a Jehova’s witness and they insisted that since it was against their religion to do blood transfusions they would make sure that it wasn’t covered for any of their employees. Would you support this?

Rastafarians are against amputation. If a big company was run by a Rastafarian do you think he should be able to take amputations off the health care of his employees that don’t share his religious beliefs?

I wouldn’t support either of these.

 

[JimG]

Of course a JW employer ought to be free to provide any kind of health insurance he wants. The employee is free to seek different or additional coverage at his own option.

And yes, if a JW hospital had a religious objection against blood transfusions it should be free not to provide them. But that may be why there are no JW hospitals, since their clientele would be rather limited.

 

[adrift]

I wouldn’t support either of these.

 

[Rence]

This is why it doesn’t make much sense for an employer to provide health insurance. My employer doesn’t provide my car, my house, my clothes, or my food. It is up to me to purchase those items in accordance with my morals. I don’t see why health insurance should be different. This way, if I am Catholic or a Jehovah witness, I can purchase health insurance in accordance with my beliefs, no matter where I work.

Most people try to choose jobs that offer the best benefits available. If you don’t want your employer to include insurance benefits in your benefits package, then you can buy your own privately and pay for it yourself. As for the majority, they will benefit from the buying power that group insurance brings them through their employers. It’s much much cheaper to buy group insurance than private insurance and you get more bang for your buck.

 

[Rence]

Of course a JW employer ought to be free to provide any kind of health insurance he wants. The employee is free to seek different or additional coverage at his own option.

And yes, if a JW hospital had a religious objection against blood transfusions it should be free not to provide them. But that may be why there are no JW hospitals, since their clientele would be rather limited.

Yes, they would be. Most people want to go to a hospital that offers a comprehensive list of services and treatments and don’t want to be subject to the religious rules of their healthcare providers. Most people follow their own religious practices (or lack thereof) to direct their medical care.

 

[interestedman]

This is why it doesn’t make much sense for an employer to provide health insurance. My employer doesn’t provide my car, my house, my clothes, or my food. It is up to me to purchase those items in accordance with my morals. I don’t see why health insurance should be different. This way, if I am Catholic or a Jehovah witness, I can purchase health insurance in accordance with my beliefs, no matter where I work.

When it comes to health insurance, when you buy in bulk, it gets a LOT cheaper. My wife’s health insurance would probably cost twice as much or more if we were to get it independently.

 

[interestedman]

The argument behind the question is “Shouldn’t we just all ignore religion based morality and set our government policies on what the majority wants?” Right? No? ARE there basic moral principles that must guide governmental policies or is everything up for grabs on majority vote?

I would assert that we had BETTER keep in mind the presence of objective right and wrong or we will soon be in the hands of totalitarian leaders who will manipulate their way to a majority power and then use that to dominate the weak.

So the question is NOT one of whether we can make exceptions for any and all religious ideas, but one of identifying the public good intended by the government policy and then evaluating objections to it individually based on the merits of their arguments. Where an objection is solidly and clearly based on basic human rights, the policy may need to be overturned entirely (i.e. Roe v Wade is an example). Where an objection is reasonably disputed and there are reasonable alternatives, exemptions should be granted (buy your own damm contraception, freeloader!). Where an objection is based on an arbitrary religious teaching and the consequences of exemption would likely be severe, it may be warranted to deny the exemption (Hey, smokin’ peyote is part of our religion, dude!).

In answer to your question, the JW blood transfusion issue would fall in the third category. They should be allowed an exemption for their own institutions (church employees, schools, etc), but individual employers should be required to provide the coverage. A reasonable accomodation would be for that employer NOT to cover it in the basic coverage, but offer it as an extra cost rider to individual insurance policies.

So what about a catholic employer? IMO, this falls in the second category. Reasonable people can reasonably dispute the way in which contraception defies the basic moral order of society. Since it’s disputed, there must be a compelling public health interest to in order for government policy to override the religious conscience of an employer. In this case, there is a clear and simple alternative to contraceptive coverage: go buy your own you freaking freeloader. Condoms are what, $5 for a 3 pack at every drug store and gas station in America? You can seriously keep a straight face and tell me it is a compelling public health need to make hormonal contraception “free” for all? Give me a break.

How is someone that wants their contraception covered by insurance a freeloader? Pay for your own hospital visit you FREELOADER! See how stupid that sounds.

“Where an objection is reasonably disputed and there are reasonable alternatives, exemptions should be granted (buy your own damm contraception, freeloader!). Where an objection is based on an arbitrary religious teaching and the consequences of exemption would likely be severe, it may be warranted to deny the exemption (Hey, smokin’ peyote is part of our religion, dude!).”

I believe that the church’s ban on contraception is an arbitrary religious teaching. I have never heard any argument against birth control that doesn’t tie back into religion. And the consequences of not taking birth control can be severe. My wife has endometriosis and is in horrible pain almost constantly without birth control.

When I read your quote all I read is “well I don’t agree with birth control and I do agree with blood transfusions so I think not giving birth control should be allowed but not allowing blood transfusions is just an arbitrary religious teaching.” Well most people that aren’t Catholic (and many that are) think being against birth control is completely arbitrary and there are no valid arguments to support it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

How is someone that wants their contraception covered by insurance a freeloader? Pay for your own hospital visit you FREELOADER! See how stupid that sounds.

“Where an objection is reasonably disputed and there are reasonable alternatives, exemptions should be granted (buy your own damm contraception, freeloader!). Where an objection is based on an arbitrary religious teaching and the consequences of exemption would likely be severe, it may be warranted to deny the exemption (Hey, smokin’ peyote is part of our religion, dude!).”

I believe that the church’s ban on contraception is an arbitrary religious teaching. I have never heard any argument against birth control that doesn’t tie back into religion. And the consequences of not taking birth control can be severe. My wife has endometriosis and is in horrible pain almost constantly without birth control.

When I read your quote all I read is “well I don’t agree with birth control and I do agree with blood transfusions so I think not giving birth control should be allowed but not allowing blood transfusions is just an arbitrary religious teaching.” Well most people that aren’t Catholic (and many that are) think being against birth control is completely arbitrary and there are no valid arguments to support it.

Birth control can be bought for $6 for a month’s worth at most stores. Birth control is available through Title X. First amendment and the Religious freedom restoration 1993 protect employers form having to pay for drugs that impinge on their religious freedom.

Blood transfusions are not available at your local store, and they be a life saver, birth control is not.

Non religious argument against contraception would be that birth control pills are grouped as a class 1 carcinogen like tobacco and asbestos, by arm of the world health organisation International Agency for research on cancer released a report in 2005. They listed the pill (combined oral contraceptive) as carcinogenic because of its effects on liver, breast and cervical cancer. Press release, Further graphs.

Other forms of contraception such as condoms have been found to have cancer causing chemicals. Depro provera has been linked to increased risk of HIV transmission; may be linked to osteoporosis and doubling risk of breast cancer

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Of course a JW employer ought to be free to provide any kind of health insurance he wants. The employee is free to seek different or additional coverage at his own option.

And yes, if a JW hospital had a religious objection against blood transfusions it should be free not to provide them. But that may be why there are no JW hospitals, since their clientele would be rather limited.

This is what people forget. Employers or hospitals are CHOOSING to provide benefits/services to employees/patients.

If as an employer, out of the goodness of my heart, I decide to set up with some company a relatively cheap way for my employees to get cheaper healthcare of any sort, yay me. But just because I do does not mean that I can be forced to also give cheaper access to other care. If all my employees want that care, they can a) get it themselves or b) work for some other guy who is willing to provide it.

It doesn’t matter what that “other care” is.

Likewise, if I decide to found an organization dedicated to treating accidental injuries and various illnesses using certain methods, that’s great. And if people who live nearby decide that they want treatment for something else, or want methods used that I am not willing to provide - they can found their own organization.

You cannot just come up to me and say “Hey man, I see that you’re pretty good at treating these sorts of diseases. Well, we had a meeting and decided that we’d really like these other things to be treated as well, and we decided that you have to do it in this way. No we don’t care that you think it’s evil. Get on it.”

 

[salusanimarum17]

What if a big company was run by a Jehova’s witness and they insisted that since it was against their religion to do blood transfusions they would make sure that it wasn’t covered for any of their employees. Would you support this?

Rastafarians are against amputation. If a big company was run by a Rastafarian do you think he should be able to take amputations off the health care of his employees that don’t share his religious beliefs?

Sure. If the employer is providing a benefit, the employer decides what it covers. As long as everything is on paper, I see no problem.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I believe that the church’s ban on contraception is an arbitrary religious teaching. I have never heard any argument against birth control that doesn’t tie back into religion. And the consequences of not taking birth control can be severe. My wife has endometriosis and is in horrible pain almost constantly without birth control.

Going to ignore most of the rest of what you said for the moment just to point out: You’re setting up an equivalence between a specific drug and “birth control” that we are not.

Taking a pill for an illness that unfortunately has contraceptive side effects can be justified (depending on what alternatives there are). This does not count as contraception. We wouldn’t even call it birth control, but simply taking pill X for reason Y with side effects Z.

Taking the pill for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is what we call birth control and are opposed to. And the reasoning is pretty sound, if you think it can be easily dismissed, it might be worth looking over it again.

 

[scipio337]

What if a big company was run by a Jehova’s witness and they insisted that since it was against their religion to do blood transfusions they would make sure that it wasn’t covered for any of their employees. Would you support this?

Rastafarians are against amputation. If a big company was run by a Rastafarian do you think he should be able to take amputations off the health care of his employees that don’t share his religious beliefs?

Your entire argument is a false analogy. The lifesaving treatments of blood transfusions and amputations now equal the very cheap and non-essential birth control?

Why not just throw sexual reassignment and cosmetic “enhancements” into the mix? Hey, people have a right to free stuff, ya know!

 

[fix]

How is someone that wants their contraception covered by insurance a freeloader? Pay for your own hospital visit you FREELOADER! See how stupid that sounds.

What do those two situations have in common? One would be for medical care and one is used to suppress fertility, not treat any disease.

I believe that the church’s ban on contraception is an arbitrary religious teaching. I have never heard any argument against birth control that doesn’t tie back into religion. And the consequences of not taking birth control can be severe. My wife has endometriosis and is in horrible pain almost constantly without birth control.

She was not taking “birth control” She would be taking medication that treats her pathology.

 

[manualman]

How is someone that wants their contraception covered by insurance a freeloader? Pay for your own hospital visit you FREELOADER! See how stupid that sounds.

“Where an objection is reasonably disputed and there are reasonable alternatives, exemptions should be granted (buy your own damm contraception, freeloader!). Where an objection is based on an arbitrary religious teaching and the consequences of exemption would likely be severe, it may be warranted to deny the exemption (Hey, smokin’ peyote is part of our religion, dude!).”

I believe that the church’s ban on contraception is an arbitrary religious teaching. I have never heard any argument against birth control that doesn’t tie back into religion. And the consequences of not taking birth control can be severe. My wife has endometriosis and is in horrible pain almost constantly without birth control.

When I read your quote all I read is “well I don’t agree with birth control and I do agree with blood transfusions so I think not giving birth control should be allowed but not allowing blood transfusions is just an arbitrary religious teaching.” Well most people that aren’t Catholic (and many that are) think being against birth control is completely arbitrary and there are no valid arguments to support it.

1. Hospitalization coverage IS something we all want coverage for and all pay for. In short, I AM paying for the coverage myself. Contraception is something that some want to be covered for and others don’t. That choice has been taken away arbitrarily and now those of us who morally object to the practice are still required to pay for it for others. THAT is freeloading. Look it up in Webster’s.
2. The church makes clear and concise explanations for the teaching against contraception, it’s not her fault if you’ve never bothered to learn it. Furthermore, she backs up her claims with observable facts: cultures in which contraception is celebrated as virtuous or at least morally neutral ALL have negative total fertility rates: they are committing slow motion cultural suicide. That society at large continues to ignore this empirical evidence is simply more evidence of our cultural folly.
3. Hormonal treatment for medical conditions is NOT contraception even if the medicine is the same. The medical system is CLEARLY able to handle this distinction or we’d all be able to simply ask our doctors for opiates, right? Just because it is the same hormone doesn’t make it contraception. I have no problem with coverage of hormonal treatment of legitimate medical problems. Those who simply want free birth control on my dime can buzz off.

 

[hannajomar]

Most people try to choose jobs that offer the best benefits available. If you don’t want your employer to include insurance benefits in your benefits package, then you can buy your own privately and pay for it yourself. As for the majority, they will benefit from the buying power that group insurance brings them through their employers. It’s much much cheaper to buy group insurance than private insurance and you get more bang for your buck.

When it comes to health insurance, when you buy in bulk, it gets a LOT cheaper. My wife’s health insurance would probably cost twice as much or more if we were to get it independently.

The same logic applies to purchasing food and housing. A large employer purchasing an apartment complex with 100 apartments would be much cheaper than me purchasing a condo by myself. Purchasing 100lbs of grapes is much cheaper than me purchasing 1lb. of grapes for myself. The reason employers don’t provide these things is that some employees might not want to eat grapes. Some might be vegan, and some eat at McDonald’s every day. Some might want a studio apartment in the city and some might want a farm house in the country. That’s why they pay us with money so we can choose to purchase what we want for our own lifestyle. I just don’t understand putting the power of my healthcare in the hands of my employer. I wouldn’t want to put the power of any of my other needs in his hands.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Of course a JW employer ought to be free to provide any kind of health insurance he wants. The employee is free to seek different or additional coverage at his own option.

And yes, if a JW hospital had a religious objection against blood transfusions it should be free not to provide them. But that may be why there are no JW hospitals, since their clientele would be rather limited.