“There’s all kinds of care that they could be denied because governments are allowing faith-based institutions that are publicly funded… to deny care based on their religious beliefs and values.”
“There’s all kinds of care that they could be denied because governments are allowing faith-based institutions that are publicly funded… to deny care based on their religious beliefs and values.”
If you provide a service, you should not be able to discriminate.
Or, on other words,
And I would extend that to being “a merciful and empathetic person”, as well.
I think the argument is that they don’t provide that service.
[Some of] These organizations pre-date the legality of the services they are not offering.
I understand a person feeling that killing a person is at odds with their hippocratic oath. I understand a person feeling that killing a person in any situation is a sin.
I don’t personally agree, but I see where they are coming from. Doctors shouldn’t be obligated to kill patients.
That said: organizations don’t have religious beliefs, people do. If there are doctors at these hospitals that are merciful and compassionate people that feel medical assistance in dying is appropriate for a patient, then they should be able to provide that service to the patient, regardless of which hospital they are in.
People shouldn’t have to consider which hospital to go to to get appropriate care.
I think you need to review what that oath entails. Because it does not include not killing someone. It is about doing the least amount of harm… and there are some harms that are much worse than death.
Friend, I explicitly say i don’t agree at the beginning of the next paragraph.
Friend, I agree, but they think they are sending patients to hell by killing them before they convert.