Opinion Pieces

[thessalian]

Sign in Florida doctor's office tells those who voted for Obama to go elsewhere.

Apparently, this kind of thing is legal, if barely. It seems that the anti-discrimination laws deal with race, gender, faith and orientation, not political opinion. It's a fine line, but one that this arsehole is walking with apparent glee. Now, maybe it's just me, but I personally don't think that anyone in a position of that kind of authority should be allowed to go around suggesting that someone's not welcome or wrong if they don't share said professional's political or religious opinions. I'm not against anyone having opinions, mind you - I just honestly think that if you're in the workplace, you keep those opinions to yourself.

And yes, this goes for pharmacists and even doctors who will stonewall anyone seeking the morning-after pill, contraception or even abortion. I am not saying that any doctor who does not believe in or approve of abortion should be forced to perform them; gods no. However, any doctor who is asked for advice on such should at least have the professionalism to say, "This goes against everything I stand for; I will refer you to [OtherDoctor] if you're serious about this". As to pharmacists refusing to provide the Pill, morning-after or otherwise, I would only say that if one is not willing to fill a prescription, one should not be a pharmacist.

I sort of worry, in this sort of situation, about people who apparently deliberately put themselves in a position where they could enforce their beliefs on the general public in a professional setting. It's bad enough when it's doctors - what happens when it's policemen? Or teachers? What happened to professional detachment?

Comments

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Well, apparently his catchement area is predominantly Republican, so I suppose he feels that what few Democrats might come through his doors aren't worth having. Plus he seems to be protesting the new healthcare bill, which I don't really know enough about to comment on very well, but seems more along the lines of 'everyone must have health insurance' (which may not cover everything and will mean more wrangling with insurance companies over what is or is not covered under the policy the government insists is necessary) than taxpayer money going directly to him, as it would under the NHS, for example.