A lawmaker from Israel’s far-right Religious Zionism party said on Sunday that doctors should be allowed to deny treatments that go against their religious beliefs, provided another doctor is available to treat them.
In an interview with Kan Radio, Orit Strock stated: “If a doctor is asked to give any type of treatment to someone that violates his religious faith, if there is another doctor who can do it, then you can’t force them to provide treatment.”
Such treatments could include those involving fertility for unmarried women or a doctor refusing treatment to a person of the opposite sex or a member of the LGBT community. Although this type of debate isn’t unique to Israel, it comes at a time where the incoming government is finalizing coalition deals before the swearing-in deadline – January 2.
Lawmaker Simcha Rothman, also from the Religious Zionism party, tweeted on Sunday a statement agreeing with Strock: “Let’s make it simple. Liberty means that people can also do things that I do not like. Freedom of speech means that one can also say things that are unpleasant about religious people, Arabs or LGBTQ+.”
“Freedom of occupation means that a person is also allowed not to behave nicely to clients, and boycott or not, and the clientele will or will not punish him for it,” the tweet continued. “That is liberty. Shocking, right?”
The doctor’s union in Israel came out against Strock’s statement, calling it a violation of the Hippocratic Oath that doctor’s must take. Doctors in the Jewish state must treat everyone, including terrorists injured in attacks against the country.
In a statement to the press, prime minister-designate Bibi Netanyahu called Strock’s words “unacceptable.” He continued: “The coalition agreements do not allow for discrimination against LGBT people or for harming the right of any citizen in Israel to receive service. Likud will guarantee that there will be no harm to LGBT people or any Israeli citizen.” –i24 News
This is a politician talking. No physician, frum or otherwise, would refuse any treatment to someone because of their lifestyle choices. He may not participate in gender surgery, sterilization procedures, etc. But withholding “regular” medical care to someone? I don’t see it.
What makes you think she was talking about refusing “regular” medical care to someone due to their religion or lifestyle choices?
She was talking about TREATMENTS that violate one’s faith, not the treatment of PEOPLE who violate one’s faith.
Thank you to these courageous women. Kol hakavod. They are being marbeh kvod shomayim.
she is a monster….. what will you say when a family member of ours is detached from life support because the xian doctor’s religion does not believe in “futile care”? Doctors must do their job, and as Itche says scheduled surgeries are already performed in accordance to medical staff beliefs.
Great. So if your own daughter decides to have a gender change, her doctor should be forced to do so even against your will. Perfect.
Agreed.
Kudos to voices of reason.
If only the doctors had the heroic courage to refuse inoculating the death jabs like that German anti-vax nurse who injected 8,600 people with saline instead of COVID vaccine.
Good thing that doctors know the difference between lifesaving vaccines and junk science. You don’t.
That nurse should be prosecuted for homicide if any of those people died. The vaccines save lives.
> “Hippocratic Oath”
The oath (though often changed in modern times) in its earliest known forms (as translated by the Loeb series and copied in Wikipedia) states in part:
> “I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”
How does that fit with the “my body my choice” and “assisted suicide” dogma of “modern” times. And I find nothing in the oath that requires a physician to treat anyone. The oath merely places requirements on the physician on how to behave regarding his teachers and his patients, but I see nothing about requiring the physician to either become the student of any particular teacher nor to accept any particular person as a patient in the first place. As translated in Wikipedia:
> Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free.
Nothing in that statement requires the physician to actually enter a house (take on any particular patient) in the first place. And clearly there is nothing about doing to or for the patient whatever it is the patient wants, but instead, requires the doctor to perform only what the doctor feels is a benefit, and also refrain from any procedure the doctor feels is harmful.
The Hippocratic Oath is not given today and no Jew could take it. It begins with invocations to pagan gods!
Clarification: My previous reply of “Agreed…” is to the original comment of “Ashreichem”, not to the groveling reply of “Anonymous”. If “Anonymous” would be less beholden to the left he would easily realize that one thing has nothing to do with the other. The doctor has to administer what is objectively ‘care’, whether it is “futile” in his opinion or not. Administering medical maneuvers to change the natural functions of the body, that is not care, but harm.
Wrong. Many treatments are done to change natural functions to improve quality of life. Bariatric surgery for obesity. Orthodontics. Nasal surgery to improve breathing. Even cosmetic surgery. Learn some more.
We already have Christians obstructing lifesaving medically necessary abortions that are halachically mandated.
Most doctors don’t do gender surgeries. But the breadth of the politicization is excessive. I know a frum pediatrician who prescribed puberty blockers to frum kids — not for gender reassignment but for precocious puberty. When girls start having their periods as young as six or seven this is an appropriate treatment and the politicians are trying to ban it. This is another example of changing natural functions in a good way.
Spoken like a true goy.
Do you even listen to yourself? All of life-saving medicine changes the natural function of the body that’s otherwise going to sustain serious damage of destruction. The natural outcome of serious diseases is “exitus” unless medicine steps in. Surgery changes and repurposes organs all the time. Is that what you are advocating to restrict? Additionally, are you pushing for a return to the dark old days when the patient had little self-determination, with a panel of doctors determining what “administer objectively care” should mean? What if they conclude it is “objectively” medically appropriate that every patient receives an autopsy? Which it is, except that patients’ objections should always prevail!
You are an ignoramus, like the oxymoronic and moronic dati leumi mk, and are willing to destroy Jewish and human lives, not to mention break halacha (autopsies for training purposes, forced organ donation) in order to forcibly fit your definition to one very specific elective surgery which is not imposed on any medical equipe and certainly not imposed on any patient. I would indeed like to understand what Rabbis advocate refusing medical treatment to someone who has undergone that sort of surgery forbidden by halacha and who is now sick or had an accident and needs medical attention. Post the Rabbis’ names, as I don’t think that lady is fit to teach me Torah. Incidentally, in the past decades I never heard much outrage against elective sterilization procedures (with no medical indications) and I am brought to wonder whether indeed halacha is the top priority.
I didn’t think I would have to spell it out, but I will now. I was obviously referring to medically changing ‘healthy’ functions of the body, which is objectively harmful, as opposed to changing ‘unhealthy’ functions of the body for the better, which is objectively necessary care.
In short, I was referring to the so-called “gender-affirming care” which includes barbaric mutilation and the stymying of healthy body functions.
This so-called “care” should be made illegal, and kal vachomer that a religious person should not be forced to administer it against his beliefs and morals.
I think there is something not clear in how you think medical procedures work.
Let’s say someone (possibly not even Jewish) had the elective procedure you refer to. Given that it is elective, it is scheduled and of course done by surgeons and personnel who are willing to do it. A lot will object…. most of them not because of religious beliefs but because they will estimate it’s not advantageous to their career. No one is forced to, and no law is needed.
Now a few years have passed and the person has a heart attack. Has a growth. Whatever. Has a car accident, maybe it was not even their fault. I sure hope it was not charedim who are at fault in the car accident, hopefully it was Arabs. “They” seek medical attention because “they” need it. Suppose “They” have a broken leg, which requires a doctor, if you don’t mind.
Now reread the article and this dimwit’s statement.
“a doctor refusing treatment to …. a member of the LGBT community”
What do you think will be the consequence of refusing medical treatment to this person? and what will happen a few days later, when a Haredi needing medical attention will be seen by a secular doctor (the majority) or even by a LGBT doctor (many more than you think!)???
Even more absurd and sick is
“a doctor refusing treatment to a person of the opposite sex”
is this for real? perhaps the most sick among Muslims (not even them, as far as I know) but this has nothing to do with halacha and Torah.
If you carefully read MK Struk’s quoted words, you will see it is not so. The words you are quoting are in fact an interpretation of her words by the author of the article. The following is a direct quote of MK Struk as reported by Arutz Sheva, with an English translation:
ל”לא מדובר בכלל על זהות המטופל אלא על מהות הטיפול. אם יש טיפול רפואי שמנוגד להלכה, רופא
“שומר מצוות לא יאלץ לתת אותו, ללא קשר לזהות המטופל
“It is not about the patient’s identity at all, but about the essence of the treatment. If there is medical treatment that is against the Halacha, an observant doctor will not be forced to give it, regardless of the patient’s identity.”