I was asked for my religion today..

optogirl

This is like groundhog day but I...can't....stop....replying....

gurramok

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I still see nothing that has anything to do with the religion of the patients

So? That is not the issue here in this case. Jesus girl, read the part of the article again.

because females undergoing treatment were advised to take contraception or abstain from sex. The proposal to use the drug had already been approved by the ethics committee in Tallaght hospital but the sub committee of the Mater board argued that advising women to use contraception was against Catholic doctrine.

What part do you not understand now?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Oho, Catholic in denial? Suspicious stuff altogether.

Welcome back youngster

Its everyday slang. You'd know that already wouldn't you :rolleyes:

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

Where is the similarity in caring for your own personal gain and caring for humans?

So if there is no personal gain, why would I bother doing it unless I cared about helping other people? Explain that there Gonzo?

gurramok wrote: »

Thats good to hear Gonzo if its true. I might just bump into you on the streets then. I just hope you don't discriminate on religious grounds when distributing the gear.

Yes, because there is actually a secret underworld of homeless AGI members who we are aiming to support with out efforts, no filthy Catholics/Church of Ireland/Muslim/Hindu/Agnostic/Atheist's will be getting our sleeping bags.

Well done. Tool.

gurramok wrote: »

You cannot judge the Catholic Church objectively, you are biased.

I'm biased? The mind, it boggles.

gurramok wrote: »

And what if A was not available? You see, there lies the problem. B never had a hope of success due to religious interference.:mad:

But A is available and B will be tested elsewhere so your "argument" is flawed.


Also, it has NOTHING to do with the religion or lack thereof of the patients. The trail was stopped because of the Ethos of the hospital!

I honestly think you need help on several levels. If you want I could forward you details of where you can go and get an A.Q. Evaluation, Psychiatric Evaluations, English Reading Lessons and maybe the number of the hospital so if you really give a flying **** you can ring them and make a complaint.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Welcome back youngster

Stop winking at me ye auld freak. :pac:

Its everyday slang. You'd know that already wouldn't you :rolleyes:

Yeah I do actually. You'd want to take care of your eyes. You keep on rolling them every second and you might get a disconnected retina.

gurramok

Seaneh wrote: »

So if there is no personal gain, why would I bother doing it unless I cared about helping other people? Explain that there Gonzo?

Gonzo, you compared human caring to the the "craic". NOw, why don;t you show equal caring to me?

Seaneh wrote: »

Yes, because there is actually a secret underworld of homeless AGI members who we are aiming to support with out efforts, no filthy Catholics/Church of Ireland/Muslim/Hindu/Agnostic/Atheist's will be getting our sleeping bags.

Well done. Tool.

Getting abusive again?

You obviously do not see the comparison between religious interference in trials and no interference in your charity.

Seaneh wrote: »

I'm biased? The mind, it boggles.

Yes, i showed you how in your posts.

Seaneh wrote: »

But A is available and B will be tested elsewhere so your "argument" is flawed.


Also, it has NOTHING to do with the religion or lack thereof of the patients. The trail was stopped because of the Ethos of the hospital!

Yet another who hasn't a clue.

Article wrote:

because females undergoing treatment were advised to take contraception or abstain from sex. The proposal to use the drug had already been approved by the ethics committee in Tallaght hospital but the sub committee of the Mater board argued that advising women to use contraception was against Catholic doctrine.

Where does it say religious patients in that? Go on, show us.

optogirl

gurramok wrote: »

Gonzo, you compared human caring to the the "craic". NOw, why don;t you show equal caring to me?

What?

You obviously do not see the comparison between religious interference in trials and no interference in your charity.

What?

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

Gonzo, you compared human caring to the the "craic". NOw, why don;t you show equal caring to me?



Getting abusive again?

You obviously do not see the comparison between religious interference in trials and no interference in your charity.



Yes, i showed you how in your posts.




Yet another who hasn't a clue.



Where does it say religious patients in that? Go on, show us.

You were asked to give proof that patients in Irish hospitals were discriminated against because of their religion or lack thereof.
You started ****ing on about the trails in response saying that the trials were stopped because of the patients offending catholic values.


You obviously can't comprehend ANYTHING.


As for you other points, they are so retarded that I won't even bother addressing them further than this.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Stop winking at me ye auld freak. :pac:

Now now

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yeah I do actually. You'd want to take care of your eyes. You keep on rolling them every second and you might get a disconnected retina.

If I was a woman and took contraceptives, would you deny me treatment for my eyes at your doctors clinic on religious grounds? (Kerry example)

optogirl

gurramok wrote: »

Now now



If I was a woman and took contraceptives, would you deny me treatment for my eyes at your doctors clinic on religious grounds? (Kerry example)

words random nonsense anything smiley face?

gurramok

optogirl wrote: »

What?


What?

optogirl wrote: »

words random nonsense anything smiley face?

Look, you are a poster of very few words. Have you anything to contribute?

optogirl

gurramok wrote: »

optogirl wrote: »

Look, you are a poster of very few words. Have you anything to contribute?

I do, I do but unfortunatley I seem to have to keep repeating myself against a barrage of nonsense.

gurramok

Seaneh wrote: »

You were asked to give proof that patients in Irish hospitals were discriminated against because of their religion or lack thereof.
You started ****ing on about the trails in response saying that the trials were stopped because of the patients offending catholic values.

Correct, about bleein time you see it.

I'm quoting official sources my friend. Where are your sources?

Actually, none of the religious posters have offered a single source throughout this thread. All we got was misguided passion.

gurramok

optogirl wrote: »

I do, I do but unfortunatley I seem to have to keep repeating myself against a barrage of nonsense.

No nonsense from me here. Answer the question then.

If I was a woman and took contraceptives, would you deny me treatment for my eyes at your doctors clinic on religious grounds? (Kerry example)

Would you?

XxMCRxBabyxX

gurramok wrote: »

So? That is not the issue here in this case. Jesus girl, read the part of the article again.



What part do you not understand now?



Welcome back youngster

Its everyday slang. You'd know that already wouldn't you :rolleyes:

That's now what you were asked though was it? READ THE ****ING QUESTION

optogirl

gurramok wrote: »

No nonsense from me here. Answer the question then.



Would you?

Very hard to understand the question as it's so badly phrased. First I have to pretend that you are a woman, I am a doctor, I am religious and am anti-contraception. None of which is true. How could I possibly know what I would do in an alternate universe?

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Now now



I was a woman and took contraceptives,

/slowly backs away

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

Correct, about bleein time you see it.

I'm quoting official sources my friend. Where are your sources?

Actually, none of the religious posters have offered a single source throughout this thread. All we got was misguided passion.

The trial being stopped had NOTHING to do with the patients religion or lack thereof.


YOU ARE MAKING STUFF UP.

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

If I was a woman and took contraceptives, would you deny me treatment for my eyes at your doctors clinic on religious grounds? (Kerry example)

Wow; another 20 pages in the last 18 hours.....:D

Still talking about issues such as conscientious objection, I see. Did you ever find the doctor's code of ethics that underpins these issues? It really is the starting ground for anyone who wants to be taken seriously on these issues.

No......?

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

No nonsense from me here. Answer the question then.



Would you?

Nobody was denied anything because they were on contraceptives.
Where does it say they were?!?!?!

YOU ARE MAKING STUFF UP.

gurramok

optogirl wrote: »

Very hard to understand the question as it's so badly phrased. First I have to pretend that you are a woman, I am a doctor, I am religious and am anti-contraception. None of which is true. How could I possibly know what I would do in an alternate universe?

Well, if you were, what would you do?

Seaneh wrote: »

The trial being stopped had NOTHING to do with the patients religion or lack thereof.

Eh, duh!!

Where did I say that? Quote it. Of course, evidence is your very weak point.

Seaneh wrote: »

Nobody was denied anything because they were on contraceptives.
Where does it say they were?!?!?!

YOU ARE MAKING STUFF UP.

The Kerry article. Are you actually following the thread at all? Keep up fella.

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

If I was a woman and took contraceptives, would you deny me treatment for my eyes at your doctors clinic on religious grounds? (Kerry example)

In Kerry, a woman was denied a NON-ESSENTIAL prescription from a doctor at a PRIVATE GP's practice for the morning after pill.

She was not denied treatment or blocked from going elsewhere to get a prescription for the morning after pill.


And before you go pulling up the case at The Galway Clinic again. Galway Clinic is a PRIVATE hospital where consultants run PRIVATE practices. Whom they treat is entirely their choice. The Doctor involved runs a fertility clinic for MARRIED couples, he does however refer any perspective unmarried couples seeking his treatment to other doctors who run practices that cater of their desires.


Both examples you gave happened in PRIVATE PRACTICES. Your "argument" is, as always, wrong. You haven't been right about a single thing in this thread.


Nobody was refused treatment because of their religious beliefs or lack there of.


YOU ARE MAKING STUFF UP.

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

Wow; another 20 pages in the last 18 hours.....:D

Still talking about issues such as conscientious objection, I see. Did you ever find the doctor's code of ethics that underpins these issues? It really is the starting ground for anyone who wants to be taken seriously on these issues.

No......?

Oh welcome back Dr. drkpower. Did you find the code of ethics as you are supposed to be a genius in this area?

Maybe you are a witchdoctor and not a real doctor after all

partyatmygaff

What Seaneh said...

Seaneh wrote: »

In Kerry, a woman was denied a NON-ESSENTIAL prescription from a doctor at a PRIVATE GP's practice for the morning after pill.

She was not denied treatment or blocked from going elsewhere to get a prescription for the morning after pill.


And before you go pulling up the case at The Galway Clinic again. Galway Clinic is a PRIVATE hospital where consultants run PRIVATE practices. Whom they treat is entirely their choice. The Doctor involved runs a fertility clinic for MARRIED couples, he does however refer any perspective unmarried couples seeking his treatment to other doctors who run practices that cater of their desires.


Both examples you gave happened in PRIVATE PRACTICES. Your "argument" is, as always, wrong. You haven't been right about a single thing in this thread.

What gurramok heard

Seaneh wrote: »

BZZZZZZ.... I'M A CATHOLIC AND I HATE YOU BZZZZZZ....

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

The Kerry article. Are you actually following the thread at all? Keep up fella.

You have managed to confuse yourself. This is hilarious.

gurramok

Seaneh wrote: »

In Kerry, a woman was denied a NON-ESSENTIAL prescription from a doctor at a PRIVATE GP's practice for the morning after pill.

She was not denied treatment or blocked from going elsewhere to get a prescription for the morning after pill.

And before you go pulling up the case at The Galway Clinic again. Galway Clinic is a PRIVATE hospital where consultants run PRIVATE practices. Whom they treat is entirely their choice. The Doctor involved runs a fertility clinic for MARRIED couples, he does however refer any perspective unmarried couples seeking his treatment to other doctors who run practices that cater of their desires.

Both examples you gave happened in PRIVATE PRACTICES. Your "argument" is, as always, wrong. You haven't been right about a single thing in this thread.

Nobody was refused treatment because of their religious beliefs or lack there of.

The GP practice serves patients from the public. Your last line is one of hypocrisy.

The woman was refused by her doctor as it went against the doctors religious beliefs. She should not have to travel all the way to Cork for treatment.

That is, a sterling case of a doctor using religious grounds to deny treatment to a member of the public.

You are wrong again Sir.

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

The GP practice serves patients from the public. Your last line is one of hypocrisy.

The woman was refused by her doctor as it went against the doctors religious beliefs. She should not have to travel all the way to Cork for treatment.

That is, a sterling case of a doctor using religious grounds to deny treatment to a member of the public.

You are wrong again Sir.

No, you have just proved that you are an idiot, again. Well done.


Awesome 5000th post =D

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

The GP practice serves patients from the public.

But is privately run. Do keep up with the thread :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:;););)

Your last line is one of hypocrisy.

Dictionaries are getting fairly cheap.

You are wrong again Sir.

Talking to yourself - First signs of old age and/or madness.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What Seaneh said...


What gurramok heard

BZZZZZZ.... I'M A CATHOLIC AND I HATE YOU BZZZZZZ....

In the schoolyard are we?

Seaneh wrote: »

You have managed to confuse yourself. This is hilarious.

No, you managed to confuse yourself Mr Seaneh.

Remember you thought I had said it was the patients religion in the trials(loads of evidence), that was very funny as you could not back up I had said such a thing. You got mixed up, a bit of basic comprehension would of helped you.

Now get off your high horse as you're riding it backwards

gurramok

Seaneh wrote: »

No, you have just proved that you are an idiot, again. Well done.

Awesome 5000th post =D

What an idiotic 5000th post. Think before you post.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

In the schoolyard are we?

Yeah, sure, why not?

/Take notes everyone, it's rare that we see a case where people lose track of their location so quickly.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yeah, sure, why not?

/Take notes everyone, it's rare that we see a case where people lose track of their location so quickly.

Especially for you.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1022

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

/Take notes everyone, it's rare that we see a case where people lose track of their location so quickly.

gurramok wrote: »

Especially for you.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1022

Yeah it's pretty rare for me. Haven't seen many people with the condition.

No one wants to know that you browse Primary and Pre School forums either.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No one wants to know that you browse Primary and Pre School forums either.

Only certain Catholic clergy do that.:D

Morlar

Can someone please drag this thread out the back and shoot it in the head.

Page 70.

partyatmygaff

Morlar wrote: »

Can someone please drag this thread out the back and shoot it in the head.

But the thread's Catholic. Only the fecking pagan threads get that sort of treatment.

Morlar

partyatmygaff wrote: »

But the thread's Catholic. Only the fecking pagan threads get that sort of treatment.

Are we going to need a paypal-telethon to pay off the moderators to get rid of this thing ?

gurramok

Morlar wrote: »

Can someone please drag this thread out the back and shoot it in the head.

Page 70.

Page 26 on my screen

partyatmygaff wrote: »

But the thread's Catholic. Only the fecking pagan threads get that sort of treatment.

At least the Pagan does not invoke Pagan doctrine

Morlar

gurramok wrote: »

Page 26 on my screen

I can see more clearly because mine was blessed by the pope.

partyatmygaff

Morlar wrote: »

Are we going to need a paypal-telethon to pay off the moderators to get rid of this thing ?

They'll take your money for the Church of boards.ie, call you a pagan and then deny you life-saving treatment and then they'll forcibly transplant all your internal organs (Barring your durrty pagan brain) without anesthetic.

It's the boards.ie ethos and codes of ethics.

philologos

Seaneh, amn't I correct in saying that you're an Evangelical Christian?

gurramok: It's becoming incredibly tedious to hear you accuse everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint as being Roman Catholic. Why not just take people on their word?
Personally, I agree with you in part. It would be probably more effective if all hospitals were multidenominational in character. Even if this were the case you'd be asked about your religion or lack thereof.
You mention the 86% and the 14%. The difference between those in the 14% and the 86% of the population that move towards more vocal atheism / agnosticism is that generally the other 14% are quite happy with the way things are.

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

Page 26 on my screen

And mine says 53, you see, different people have different view settings for boards.

Gob****e.

Seaneh

Jakkass wrote: »

Seaneh, amn't I correct in saying that you're an Evangelical Christian?

gurramok: It's becoming incredibly tedious to hear you accuse everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint as being Roman Catholic. Why not just take people on their word?
Personally, I agree with you in part. It would be probably more effective if all hospitals were multidenominational in character. Even if this were the case you'd be asked about your religion or lack thereof.
You mention the 86% and the 14%. The difference between those in the 14% and the 86% of the population that move towards more vocal atheism / agnosticism is that generally the other 14% are quite happy with the way things are.

Jakkass, shouldn't all Christians evangelize?

dvpower

Seaneh wrote: »

And mine says 53, you see, different people have different view settings for boards.

Gob****e.

Are you disrespecting his user settings?:mad:

philologos

Seaneh wrote: »

Jakkass, shouldn't all Christians evangelize?

Absolutely. Unfortunately we're at the stage where we have to attach labels to prove to gurramok that we're not covert Catholics :pac:

gurramok

Seaneh wrote: »

And mine says 53, you see, different people have different view settings for boards.

Gob****e.

Oh Lord, what a very unChristian thing to say:D

gurramok

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely. Unfortunately we're at the stage where we have to attach labels to prove to gurramok that we're not covert Catholics :pac:

Thought you were mature enough Jakkass to know that my basis was not on labels but from posters staunch defending of the Catholic Ethos.

I've been labelled every offensive name under the sun in the name of said posters and I notice you have not said a word about that.:mad:

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

Oh Lord, what a very unChristian thing to say:D

You see, as a Christian I accept that I am not perfect and that I need God's forgiveness. If I tried to act as if I was perfect I would be a hypocrite, like you. I merely try my best to be as good a Christian as I can.

I fall short of the glory of God in every imaginable way every single second of every single day, but he has forgiven me.

God is kinda cool like that.

gurramok

Seaneh wrote: »

You see, as a Christian I accept that I am not perfect and that I need God's forgiveness. If I tried to act as if I was perfect I would be a hypocrite, like you. I merely try my best to be as good a Christian as I can.

I fall short of the glory of God in every imaginable way every single second of every single day, but he has forgiven me.

God is kinda cool like that.

Bless you son. Does he allow you a quota of curses to aim at me?

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

Oh welcome back Dr. drkpower. Did you find the code of ethics as you are supposed to be a genius in this area?

Maybe you are a witchdoctor and not a real doctor after all

I have one in front of me. But this test was actually for you. If you cant even find - nevermind read, understand & absorb - a publically available (online) document that sets out the basic ethical standards for doctors, your opinions on an questions that centre on medical ethics are essentially worthless.

But I think everyone has realised that already.

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

Bless you son. Does he allow you a quota of curses to aim at me?

He forgives all of my sins. I am dressed in glorious white and washed in the blood of the lamb in His eyes. As far as He is concerned, I am sinless.
I love my Daddy.