this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
1608 points (98.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

6125 readers
2982 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think we should also force chuck e cheese to perform abortions.

[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 3 points 5 days ago

Instead of doctors we'd have AI controlled animatronics doing the deed.

[–] renzev@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago (3 children)

How come 90% of these twitter screenshots I see on lemmy are all just witty comebacks to fake opinions that nobody actually holds? This is like those "feminist gets rekt with facts and logic" compilation videos on youtube, but for liberals. Poking fun at strawmen every once in a while is entertaining, but it gets old really quickly.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is a 100% real opinion a lot of people hold.

[–] renzev@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Nevermind, I think you're right. I was confused by the term "catholic hospital", but I looked it up and apparently a lot of hospitals around the world really do have a religious affiliations.

[–] cheers_queers@lemm.ee 14 points 6 days ago

a woman i nannied for almost died giving birth to both of her sons. when she had the second one, she asked them to tie her tubes while they were doing the c section and they refused due to their religious policies. she had to fully recover from the birth and then find a doctor who would do the procedure, then had to recover again from that surgery.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

If they want to have an argument on the Internet they don't need to make up a bad take; it's an abundant resource on the web.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

Sadly, I have met actual Catholics who believe this.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

We have a Catholic hospital here in the city where I live in Ontario. Being publicly funded makes what they do different from the American ones, but despite doing women's health and obstetrics they don't do tubal ligation unless it's approved by their board, so even if you had a planned c section and were planning on having your tubal during the procedure, if you had to have your c section on an emergency basis because you labour early, they won't do it. It's so fucked up. It's a good hospital but come on. It's 2025, most Catholics use birth control. If you don't want to do abortions, fine, but a tubal during a c section is really just saving someone a second surgery.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

they don’t do tubal ligation unless it’s approved by their board

So they aren't above doing the procedure entirely? They're just persnickity about who is "worthy" of receiving the service?

If you don’t want to do abortions, fine

It's crazy how a life-saving procedure is off-the-table on the "Pro-Life" grounds.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Well I mean what are called therapeutic abortions. Not someone who needs a D and C for tissue that didn't pass spontaneously or something. The Americans are crazy in that regard. If a pregnancy is nonviable it isn't therapeutic abortion.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 6 days ago (7 children)

A hospital is just a building and the organization that owns the building.

The real question is, should hospitals be allowed to force or forbid doctors from providing medical care?

A doctor (Catholic or not) should never, and can never, be forced to perform a medical procedure, including abortions. And they also shouldn't be forbidden from performing a medical procedure.

Hospitals just provide rooms and equipment so that doctors can provide the care that their patients need, within their ability to provide that care.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 20 points 6 days ago (9 children)

If a doctor refuses to perform a medically necessary procedure because of his/her religion, as far as om concerned that should invalidate their medical license immediately.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago (1 children)

"do no harm, unless it violated your specific religious ideology" that's how the oath goes right?

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

“Do no harm” is not the same as “Do prevent harm.”

Also, if you’re citing the Hippocratic Oath,…

I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (5 children)

The Hippocratic Oath was created to forbid surgery, since it was a provable harm before modern hygienic standards. No one has sworn the original in centuries, but they do swear modernized versions which don't include such ignorant nonsense.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 5 points 6 days ago

The Hippocratic Oath was created to forbid surgery,

I will not use the knife […], but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 16 points 6 days ago

This is really it. If a doctor has a moral objection to abortions, maybe gynecology wasn't the right discipline for them to practice. That's on them, and they should be upfront about it being a personal moral objection and for them to seek another doctor.

I'm fine with that compromise, because I suspect those doctors are and will remain the minority, and everyone's rights are preserved.

But if a chief of medicine, or worse, a board of non-doctors, says their hospital won't perform abortions on religious grounds? Then fuck you, you're not a hospital, you are a faith-based healing center, and need to be treated as such.

Hospital administration needs to be science-based care and check their religion at the door, especially if they aren't directly practicing. They shouldn't be making decisions that directly effect people that they are indirectly related to based upon someone's interpretation of an old anthology of fables.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 11 points 6 days ago

That's fine. Just don't expect to keep your medical license as you sit around doing nothing as people die of preventable deaths.

If you're a doctor, your job is to save lives. If you intentionally fail to do that job it shouldn't be your job.

If a fireman refused to put out a fire because they didn't feel like it, they'd be lose their job too.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

I disagree somewhat. If a doctor is practicing in a situation where an abortion is necessary, it was their duty to not be a doctor if they find that morally repugnant.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

should hospitals be allowed to force or forbid doctors from providing medical care?

They provide the facilities, which includes administration and legal and billing. So in that regard, they have to have some kind of say, simply because they need to stock the equipment, train the nurses/MAs, and establish standard protocols for a given procedure. Otherwise, how do you contest a medical malpractice claim?

A doctor (Catholic or not) should never, and can never, be forced to perform a medical procedure, including abortions. And they also shouldn’t be forbidden from performing a medical procedure.

Doctors can and do regularly incur liability if they fail to perform certain necessary medical procedures, particularly in emergency room settings. A doctor that fails to follow protocol can be subject to malpractice. If, for instance, a Christian Scientist doctor refused to provide a blood transfusion to an individual suffering from sever blood loss or a narcotics prohibitionist doctor attempts to do surgery without providing anesthesia, they can get in some serious trouble.

Religious convictions don't override medical protocols. What's at issue is the legality of the protocols as they stand. Can a woman whose health is at risk from pregnancy receive an abortion without the doctors incurring criminal liability?

Right now, it appears that State AGs in prohibitionist states are threatening the licenses and freedoms of doctors who would provide life-saving care. Hospital administrators are acting as intermediaries because the hospital itself would suffer legal liability if staff knowingly permitted/facilitated an illegal procedure.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 5 points 6 days ago

Imagine I'm a doctor who refuses to prescribe medication because it makes people weak.

Same amount of body fluids.

load more comments
view more: next ›