Write the director of the hospital. I did. As a retired RN, BSN I was deeply offended by her abhorrent statements and I agree her license should be revoked.
No. People have the *right* to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on their judgement of her words and actions. Forcibly prohibiting everyone and anyone from employing her because you don't LIKE the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of *her* rights, but of *everyone's* rights (ie of those who would hire her based on her nursing abilities, not her ideological convictions).
>>"Write the director of the hospital."
Now THIS is the rights-respecting (rather than rights-violating) approach. As she is rightfully free to make her "statements", you are rightfully free to make your own "statements" expressing your 'offense' at her "abhorrent" statement. You are also rightfully free to withhold any and all association with that hospital so long as she is employed there - as well as inform the hospital you will recommend to anyone and everyone who will listen that they too should refuse to associate with the hospital so long as it chooses to associate with this nurse.
In THIS way, no one violates anyone's rights. Instead are all EXERCISING your rights.
Your comments are ridiculous. My son was treated at OHSU for multiple days. This vile, horrifically mentally ill woman has a right to free speech in America. She has no right to be employed in healthcare. To think this piece of evil shit had access to my son, his IV, his medications, his food after a football injury is incomprehensible. Her views are aligned with the genocidal, antisemitic Muslim nurses in Australia who were on video saying they’d kill Israelis in the hospital and assured us they already had. There are morals, standards and codes of ethics in healthcare. This woman is also extremely ignorant and low IQ, as she repeatedly refers to a “genocide” taking place in Gaza. No clear thinking, correctly educated, moral person repeats this lie and blood libel. If OHSU refuses to fire this nurse, if the Oregon Board Of Nursing refuses to terminate her license, no one, not just Jews, are safe seeking care at OHSU or at any Oregon healthcare facility.
>>"She has no right to be employed in healthcare."
She has EVERY right to associate with ANYONE and EVERYONE who voluntarily chooses to associate with her. And YOU have NO right to STOP any of them. Contrary to your FEELINGS here, they are NOT your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. Their life and their effort are their OWN not YOURS.
>>"this piece of evil shit"
You are certainly free NOT to associate with individuals you do not like. And you are certainly free NOT to associate with the individuals who hire them. And you are certainly free to try to convince anyone who would hire them or be treated by them to change their minds and NOT associate with her.
And you are free to do all these things because your life and your effort are your OWN. You are NOT the PROPERTY of ANYONE else - just as she is NOT your PROPERTY.
Of course, again, you are NOT free to put a gun to her head and EVERYONE else's heads (or have the State do it for you) and FORCIBLY FORBID all those individuals from VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another - because THEY are not YOUR PROPERTY. YOU putting a gun to their head and FORCIBLY FORBIDDING their CONSENSUAL human interactions is *you* VIOLATING *their* rights - ie that makes YOU a "piece of evil shit" WORSE than her (because as despicable as she is, SHE is violating NO one's rights).
>>"Her views are aligned with the genocidal, antisemitic Muslim nurses in Australia who were on video saying they'd kill Israelis in the hospital and assured us they already had."
This nurse made no such claims or threats about killing any of her patients or wishing to kill any of her patients. She simply stated she wished to EXERCISE her rights of FREE ASSOCIATION and FREE TRADE. That you try to grotesquely equivocate here and declare the EXERCISE of rights is the SAME as the VIOLATION of rights (murder in this case) is *another* EVIL act on your part. It is NO different than you claiming consensual SEX is the same as RAPE.
>>"There are morals and standards and codes of ethics in healthcare."
Every doctor, every nurse, every hospital, and every patient, etc has the right to ask others to associate with them under conditions they voluntarily and mutually agree. What NO one has the right to do is FORCIBLY FORBID them from signing agreements or making standards you don't LIKE - or FORCIBLY DEMAND they sign agreements or set standards you DEMAND.
IF a hospital or a doctor wishes to hire a nurse who is antisemitic, that is properly their RIGHT. Hell, if a hospital or doctor wishes to declare 'No Jews Allowed', again that is properly their RIGHT. Just as you and everyone else properly has the RIGHT to SHUN them into OBLIVION.
But what NO one has the right to do is put a GUN to their heads and declare they MUST treat Jews. What NO one has the right to do is put a GUN to their heads and declare IF they do NOT treat Jews, then you will FORCIBLY FORBID them from treating ANYONE, regardless of the voluntary consent of others who WANT to be treated by them.
What YOU are doing is the SAME EVIL that was done to that bakery. You are demanding - at the point of a government gun - that this nurse be FORCED to "Bake that Cake" or forever be FORBIDDEN from baking ever again.
As that was a VILE VIOLATION of the bakers' rights, so to is it a VILE VIOLATION of this nurse's rights.
>>"no one, not just Jews are safe"
If YOU do not feel "safe" interacting with her or anyone else, then you are FREE to WALK AWAY from her (as you are free to try to convince anyone and everyone else to do the same). What you are NOT free to do is substitute, at the point of a gun, YOUR judgement about "safety" (or ANYTHING else) for EVERYONE ELSE'S judgement about *their* OWN safety (that is the EVIL philosophy which created the WHOLESALE violation of rights that was the government's response to Covid).
Put simply, like the Gazans you (properly) revile, you are treating others as nothing but your meat puppets.
You have to STOP acting like the Gazans. You have to STOP being nothing but the Crips to their Bloods.
Nurses do not have the right to refuse to care for a patient. We DO have the right to request a change of assignment for sincerely held moral or ethical reasons. I have never seen a coworker do that in 37 years of practice. If she harbors such hate in her heart, nursing is not the job for her. She is a stain on our profession and I hope she loses her license as she lacks the compassion and judgment to do the job as is required.
>>"Nurses do not have the right to refuse to care for a patient."
So your claim is that nurses do NOT have the right of free association. On what basis do you make that claim?
Nurses are NOT the PROPERTY of others. Others have NO claim to the life and effort of nurses - any more slave owners had a claim to the life and effort of blacks.
I suspect you are conflating contractual agreements with rights (especially given your reference to 'changes of assignment'). Contracts and rights are NOT the same thing.
>>"I hope she loses her license"
Since she is NOT violating anyone's rights (because she is NOT the PROPERTY of others and thus NO one has a 'right' to her services), but she is instead EXERCISING her right to her OWN life and her OWN effort, NO one - certainly NOT the State - has the right to put a gun to her head and FORCIBLY forbid her from interacting with anyone else who VOLUNTARILY wishes to interact with her. NOR does anyone - certainly NOT the State - have the right to put a gun to anyone else's head and FORCIBLY forbid them from VOLUNTARILY interacting with her. NONE of those individuals are your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. And they are certainly NOT the State's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
Treating other human beings as your PROPERTY is the OPPOSITE of "compassion" and rational "judgement". It is the very *definition* of EVIL.
Your lust to put a gun to other people's heads because you don't LIKE their ideas is NO different that the lust of the Gazans to put guns to the heads of Israelis because they don't LIKE the Israelis' ideas.
Talk about *proving* my point that some here are nothing but Crips to the Gazans' Bloods!
Some professions hold you to a higher standard of moral conduct. Accepting that role is acceptance of that responsibility. She is not forced to be a nurse. Caring for other human beings at their most vulnerable moments of their lives is a privilege, not a right. That's why you study and take an exam to receive a license,which you maintain by keeping your knowledge base current. The public trusts you to do the right thing. Many professions have a moral/ ethical code that holds your behavior to a higher standard. You are free to choose a profession of that nature or not.
I base my knowledge of nursing on 37 years in the profession. What do you base yours on?
>>"Some professions hold you to a higher standard of moral conduct."
The State treating the individual as its PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires, all at the point of its GUN, is the LOWEST "standard of moral conduct" possible - ie it is the very DEFINITION of EVIL.
Yet you hold that grotesque EVIL up as the 'height' of morality.
That is called a complete moral INVERSION!
>>"Accepting that role is acceptance of that responsibility"
That is false.
If YOU wish to accept an idea, you are quite free to do so. And you (and doctors, hospitals, patients, et al) are free to associate ONLY with those who preach and practice that same idea - ie you are ALL free to choose to act in accord with your "moral/ ethical code". Moreover, you are ALL free NOT to associate with anyone who does NOT accept your ideas.
And you are FREE to do ALL these things because you are the SOLE, monopolistic owner of your OWN life and your OWN effort. As such, you - and you ALONE - dispose of YOUR life and effort as YOU, not anyone else, sees fit.
Of course, what you are NOT free to do is put a government gun to the heads of ANYONE else and FORCIBLY FORBID them from VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another if they do NOT accept your idea. And that is because, like you, they are the SOLE, monopolistic owners of THEIR lives and THEIR effort. As such, they - and they ALONE - dispose of THEIR lives and effort as THEY, not YOU, see fit.
Put simply, if a doctor or a hospital (or anyone else) so wishes, they have the *absolute* RIGHT to declare 'No Jews Allowed'. Of course, everyone else has the *absolute* RIGHT to SHUN them into oblivion.
Your (proper) disgust and horror at the idea of 'No Jews Allowed' (be it from someone baking a cake or treating a wound) doesn't CHANGE these FACTS.
To put it succinctly: your *feelings* do NOT make *anyone* your CHATTEL.
>>"I base my knowledge...on 37 years in the profession. What do you base yours on?"
On the FACT that the individual is NOT your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires.
It is a shame that, in *all* those 37 years, you NEVER learned that *basic* moral FACT.
No offense, Dude, but what you’re saying is idiotic. Professions have standards — that’s what makes them professions. “I have the right to hire that unethical lawyer.” No you don’t, because his ethics fails deny him access to law as a profession. It’s that simple. If you can’t live up to the standard of *premum non nocere*, you don’t have a right to work in healthcare. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
No. Individuals have standards. And every individual is rightfully free to associate with those who agree with his ideas - just as every individual is rightfully free to refuse to associate with those who disagree with his ideas.
>>"I have the right to hire that unethical lawyer"
Invalid comparison. All professions related to law (from the military, to the police, to the courts, etc) pertain to the use of coercive force - ie non-consensual interaction. Any and all other professions - including medicine - pertain to VOLUNTARY human interaction, aka consensual interaction.
Of course, the ONE thing that is true of ALL professions - including law - is that NO one in ANY of them may VIOLATE the rights of ANY individual for ANY reason. NO one - including the law - may treat the individual as their CHATTEL.
>>"you don't have a right to work in healthcare"
You have EVERY right to interact in ANY way with ANY other individual who VOLUNTARILY consents to that interaction. This is true whether one is talking about 'baking that cake' or 'treating that wound'. And that is because your life and your effort (and the lives and effort of ALL those other people) are your OWN. They are YOUR monopolistic PROPERTY.
You are NO one's CHATTEL.
What you do NOT properly have (and the State certainly does NOT have) is the right to put a gun to someone else's head and FORCIBLY FORBID them from freely associating with anyone and everyone who voluntarily agrees with their ideas (be they doctors, patients, tinkers, tailors, or candlestick makers). NONE of those people are your PROPERTY. You have NO right to dispose of them as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires.
In other words, contrary to your principle here, bigots do NOT lose their right to their OWN lives and their OWN effort - they do NOT become your PROPERTY - simply *because* they are bigots.
Put simply, your claim here that other human beings ARE your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires, is not only "idiotic", but is the very *definition* of EVIL.
You’re a wackjob. If you’re a lawyer in Texas and you violate the (rather voluminous) TX lawyer’s code of conduct, you are from then on (or at least until reinstatement), denied the right to practice law in Texas. End of story.
“your claim here that other human beings ARE your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires, is not only "idiotic", but is the very *definition* of EVIL.” I don’t want to be offensive, but that is literally insane. And not what I’m saying at all.
She consents to treating anyone who needs care in the facility that employs her. You’re saying she has a right to choose which people deserve to be cared for. Can she refuse to treat black people? Criminals - rapists, murderers, etc.? People who have strokes, heart attacks, because they smoked and are obese and it’s their own fault? Alcoholics with liver disease? If that’s the case, she shouldn’t be working in a hospital. I’m sure she could find a job where there is zero chance she’d have to care for Jews. Perhaps Gaza?
>>"She consents to treating anyone who needs care in the facility that employs her."
That is not true, which is why everyone - including you - is upset here. She has explicitly stated she does NOT consent to treating Jews.
>>"she shouldn't be working in a hospital"
If a hospital wishes to hire *only* employees who will treat everyone and anyone, that is their right. As such, they have the right to refuse to hire - or to fire - anyone who does not consent to such a condition of employment.
Of course, the converse is true as well. If a hospital wishes to hire employees who will only treat certain conditions or certain people and not others, that is ALSO their right. And, in turn, anyone (doctors, nurses, medical personnel, patients, etc) who doesn't like that fact is free NOT to associate with that hospital in any way, shape, or form.
Put simply, a hospital properly has the *absolute* right to say 'No Jews (or Blacks or Muslims etc etc ad nauseam) Allowed' - just as WE properly have the *absolute* right to shun them into oblivion.
What we do NOT properly have (and the State certainly does NOT have) is the right to put a gun to their heads and FORCIBLY FORBID them from freely associating with anyone and everyone who voluntarily agrees with their ideas (be they doctors, patients, etc). NONE of those people are OUR PROPERTY. We have NO right to dispose of them as WE see fit, to satisfy OUR desires.
Put simply, contrary to your principle here, bigots do NOT lose their right to their OWN lives and their OWN effort simply *because* they are bigots.
Perhaps they were unaware that she had restrictions on whom she would treat. It may well be that this became an issue subsequent to her employment. In that case they have every right to dismiss her, unless it is hospital policy to refuse to treat Jews. However, if Oregon State University Hospital is a community hospital (as opposed to a private one) it is required to treat everyone who comes there for treatment.
Rights-defending States do not "tolerate" - ie they STOP - the VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort. Whether one LIKES or HATES an individual and/or his ideas doesn't change this fact.
The SAME is true when it comes to the EXERCISE of the individual's rights. Whether one FEELS that the reason a person disposes of his OWN life and his OWN effort is based on "hate" or "love" or ANY other emotion does NOT somehow *magically* transform that individual into one's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as one sees fit, to satisfy one's desires. The individual life and effort REMAIN his OWN regardless of one's FEELINGS about that individual's motivations.
Put simply, one's EMOTIONS do not make the individual one's CHATTEL to do with as one WISHES. THAT is the EVIL 'thinking' and behavior of those you rail against in your other posts here. You should NOT be preaching, let alone practicing, THEIR grotesque philosophy. That just makes you a Crip to their Bloods.
“Associate” is a funny word choice for providing medical care and it’s the hospitals right to evaluate her ability to do her job and fire her if she cannot or will maliciously refuse care. We all have the *right* the live and receive care in a hospital.
>>""Associate" is a funny word choice for providing medical care"
It is a very COMMON word when one speaks of rights (as in the right of "Free Association" - which encompasses ALL voluntary human interaction, including interactions involving "medical care").
>>"it's the hospital's right to evaluate her"
Despite me EXPLICITLY making exactly such points, you seem to *feel* - for some unidentified reason - that I disagree with this idea.
On the basis of the words I have *actually* written here, please identify how exactly you came to this bizarre, counter-factual conclusion.
>>"We all have the *right* the live [sic]"
This statement doesn't make grammatical sense. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect you mean "We all have the *right* TO live". If so, I must point out the fact that NO one has the "right" to live *by* treating OTHER human beings as their PROPERTY. In other words, the Southern Slave Owner had NO right to live by forcing blacks pick cotton - just as you have NO right to live by forcing doctors to treat your wounds.
IF an individual VOLUNTARILY agrees to pick cotton for you, then you have the contractual PERMISSION to live by that means - just as IF an individual VOLUNTARILY agrees to treat your wound for you, then you have the contractual PERMISSION to live by that means. But if NO one VOLUNTARILY agrees to do either of those things FOR you, then - to put it in crude terms - you are sh*t out of luck.
Put simply, the fact that you WISH to live does NOT *magically* place a claim on ANYONE else's life and effort. NO one is your CHATTEL - not for ANY reason.
>>"We all have the *right* [to]...receive care in a hospital"
Contrary to your EVIL premise, there is NO such thing as the "right" to the life and effort of other human beings. Again, NO one is your CHATTEL.
And you land on “Evil”. Which is telling of your unbalanced morals.
Look, CAPSLOCK isn’t a good use of your time…
I would encourage you to absorb the thoughts of those around you. Assuming you don’t live in a lonely bowl of word salad? Although I think you might.
Forcing this narrative down the (very) few sub-stackers’ feeds is pretty darn boring considering everyone else’s HUMAN instinct and that of a medical board says the nurse’s *right* (as you so obsessively write) is not a nuanced issue, it’s a potential for a medical malpractice issue.
But your nuance, and sad excuse for mock trial precedent of “cotton picking” (good lord you are reaching).
Note that Lisa did not address a SINGLE word I wrote. Instead she simply vomited invective.
One thus thanks Lisa for confessing the fact the ONLY 'defense' she has for treating other human beings as her PROPERTY is the kindergartner's 'Nu uh, you a poopyhead!'
No. People have the right to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on their appraisal of her words and actions. Prohibiting everyone from employing her because you don't like the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of HER rights, but of EVERYONE'S rights.
I am a retired nurse, as an RN in a clinical environment, you do not get to choose whom you treat. I’ve treated criminals and rapists. If you violate your oath, you lose your license.
That is rightfully up to you and the person who employs you - NOT the State or anyone else.
>>"If you violate your oath, you lose your license."
I don't dispute this is the current practice - just as I would not have disputed slavery was the then-current practice in the historic South. What I *am* disputing is the idea that the State has the 'right' to engage in this practice - just as I would have disputed the idea that the State had the 'right' to engage in slavery.
Both practices are wrong for the *same* reason: they are, as I noted, the violation of not only your right to freely practice your profession, but a violation of everyone else's right to hire you if they so wish.
>>"I've treated criminals and rapists."
And, if that is a contractual condition you have voluntarily agreed to for employment with a given hospital or doctor, then you are properly held to that agreement. Just as, if - as part of your contractual agreement with a hospital or doctor - they have voluntarily agreed to let you choose whom you will or will not treat, then they are properly held to that agreement.
Of course, the State has NO right to forcibly dictate (as it currently does) to either you OR the hospital/doctor/employer what contractual agreement you both VOLUNTARILY choose as the conditions for the two of you associating with each other.
Put simply, NO one - not a Jewish person, not a Trans person, not a rapist - NO one has a *right* to dispose of YOUR life and YOUR effort as THEY see fit. IF you refuse to associate with (treat) such individuals, that is your RIGHT. And the State has NO right to PUNISH you for EXERCISING your rights.
That is the point I was making.
Naturally, just as you have the RIGHT to associate or refuse to associate with ANYONE for ANY reason, so too everyone else (hospitals, doctors, patients, the rest of the world) has the right to associate or refuse to associate with *you* for any reason - including your choices of association.
In other words, you properly have every right to hang a sign on your practice which reads: "No Jews Allowed". And everyone else properly has the right to shun you into oblivion. But NO one has the right to put a GUN to your head and FORBID you from working for, or treating, anyone who AGREES with (or doesn't care about) your anti-Jewish bigotry. NO one gets to treat you as THEIR PROPERTY, to be disposed of as THEY see fit, to satisfy THEIR desires. This is *especially* true of the State - which properly exists to STOP all such violators, not *systematize* their violations at the point of its GUN.
Nu uh is your argument lol. Let’s leave it to the lawyers to wrap this violation of the oath nurses take in a bow. Low standards of human behavior is all I’m hearing from your trolls. Really hard sell to protect this person’s job when she is a liability.
Keliren posted the following response here, then quickly blocked me in the hopes I wouldn't see it or be able to respond to it - all so that it would FALSELY appear as if I had no rational response to her(?) post.
Talk about dishonest!
"Did you just compare enabling service discrimination based on race or religion to slavery? Come off it you old goat."
No. I compared:
'Treating a bigot's life and effort as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires'
to
'Treating a black person's life and effort as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires'
If you can NOT see the fact that both acts are the *same* VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort, that is *your* moral failing, not mine.
One thanks Lisa for confessing the fact she doesn't grasp the SIMPLE concept of "blocked me". That level of *lack* of understanding certainly explains the rest of your posts here about *far* more COMPLEX concepts.
>>"you're unwell"
Lisa has now spent her last few post vomiting nothing but vitriol at me. Since she has reduced herself to nothing but a mindlessly SNARLING ANIMAL, there is nothing rational left to do but BLOCK the ABUSER.
At least she'll now LEARN what the concept of "blocked me" actually means. LOL
Um, no . This is not an issue of ‘free speech’- sorry. This is an issue of professional ethics and safety for patients who are subject to treatment in any facility she works at. She has a right to say that but not a right to treat patients if she makes it clear she won’t treat patients based on their identity.
Like Ari here, you seem to have misapprehended my argument. I did not make a "free speech" argument. I made a "free association" and "free trade" argument.
>>"She has a right to say that"
We agree on this idea.
>>"but not a right to treat patients if she makes it clear she won't treat patients based on their identity"
We vehemently disagree on this idea.
I would direct you to my second post to Ari in this very thread (it begins with the quote: "You do not get to choose whom you treat"). You will find arguments there which rebut this claim you have baldly asserted (ie have in no way supported) here.
Sorry dude, but you’re talking out of your a$$. There’s a difference between whether or not you can have a cake made and health care. You can spout as much pseudo intellectual bs here as your heart desires, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
>>"Sorry dude, but you're talking out of your a$$"
"Sorry dude", but the kindergartner's 'Nu uh, you a poopyhead!' ain't an argument.
This is a discussion about advanced intellectual concepts. One would *hope* anyone seeking to speak about them would do so at THAT intellectual level, not the level of a pre-rational child.
Try again.
>>"There's a difference between whether or not you can have a cake made and health care."
When it comes to your right to your OWN life and your OWN effort and WHO has the RIGHT to dispose of them - you or others - NO, there is NO difference between them. Moreover, you have said NOTHING, and provided NO evidence, to even support - let alone prove - your Southern Slave Owner idea to the contrary.
The fact is, whether you are interacting with someone to 'Bake that Cake' or 'Treat that Wound', your rights (and theirs) remain the SAME. In other words, contrary to your EVIL premise here, that individual does NOT *magically* become your PROPERTY, for you to dispose of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires in *either* instance.
Put simply, just as it was a VIOLATION of the black person's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort for him to be treated as the PROPERTY of his "Master" - regardless of whether that "Master" commanded him (at the point of a government GUN) to "Bake that Cake" or "Treat my Wound", so too it is a VIOLATION of ALL individuals' rights to their OWN lives and their OWN effort for them to be treated as *your* PROPERTY - regardless of whether you command him (at the point of a government GUN) to "Bake that Cake" or "Treat your Wound".
But thanks for confessing the fact you FEEL... (can't say "THINK", because you can't provide a single FACT of REALITY to support your Southern Slave Owner idea; instead you can only stomp your feet and spit invective) ...you FEEL that YOU have the 'right' to the life and effort of OTHERS. And you lay CLAIM to your 'rightful' human PROPERTY when you FEEL it is 'important' to you (like when it comes to your health).
"Sorry dude" but - despite your WISHES to the contrary - NO human being is your CHATTEL. Not when it comes to making your food. NOT when it comes to tending your wounds. Not for ANY reason - EVER.
PERIOD.
That said, I do appreciate you so *righteously* and nakedly declaring that human beings ARE your PROPERTY. Like rap ists, most people try to HIDE the fact that they preach and practice such a blatant EVIL.
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
You've posted this duplicate post at me twice, while doing NOTHING to link it to a single word I've written. As such, I must ask why you posted them at me, and to what end?
Sorry guy. as a nurse she probably took the Nightingale Oath upon graduation:
I solemnly pledge myself before God and in the presence of this assembly to pass my life in purity and to practice my profession faithfully. I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug. I will do all in my power to maintain and elevate the standard of my profession and will hold in confidence all personal matters committed to my keeping and all family affairs coming to my knowledge in the practice of my calling. With loyalty will I endeavor to aid the physician in his work and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care.
I believe her public statements violate this oath.
>>"I believe her public statements violate this oath."
While there *are* other, legally-binding ethical standards (of which I have identified my objections; see my second response to Ari in this very thread - the one which begins with the quote "You do not get to choose whom you treat"), it is my understanding that the "Nightingale Oath" is a ceremonial, not legal, oath.
>>"you can lose a professional license for something that is unethical..."
You didn't read the post to which I directed you. I say this because I explicitly addressed the "license" issue in it. Specifically, I identified the fact that the "license" issue is a rights-VIOLATING, not a rights-DEFENDING, action by the State - ie the State has no 'right' to do so, any more that the State had the 'right' to treat blacks as slaves. Neither bigots nor blacks are the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
Put simply, I presented rights-based arguments against such rights-violating State action, the same way Abolitionists presented rights-based arguments against the rights-violating State action of slavery. Thus I, again, direct you to those arguments as *rebuttal* to your assertions here.
Prohibiting everyone from employing her because you don't like the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of her rights, but of EVERYONE'S rights.
I might be misunderstanding you and I am sorry if I am but I was focused on the statement you made before that (the one I have pasted just above). The individual to whom you directed that reply has no power to take away her license. But the licensing board for the particular state does. I assume she could (and should) be fired from the staff at this particular hospital as she does cast doubt on the quality of medical care at this hospital. They should not have to worry about extra staffing in case 'the nurse who hates Jews is on duty'
The state professional organization and state licensing board will take it from there to the extent their power allows. And if the State pulls her license he can appeal the decision. But she is deprived employment only in the nursing profession in that state. That's very limited. Is that a loss of rights severe enough to have a court rule in her favor for license reinstatement?
The oath is ceremonial in professional organizations and the assuming of political office. The current era trivializes oaths it seems but is a brief summary of your mission going forward. You have spent 4 years in medical education and you should be well aware of what this oath means and be willing to practice in the profession to it's utmost ethical standards which should override any personal prejudices.
I wish this woman had enough sense to know that with this attitude she should NOT be anywhere in the medical profession. I am of Christian upbringing but I wouldn't want this kind of person treating a family member. Who knows what the next trigger is going to come down the line to create another prejudice in her mind. Her rationalization for her prejudice is irrational. Frankly, I think she's dangerous because she is ethically weak.
this heinous being's behaviour. The problem might be, as it is here in Canada, regulatory bodies are armed with over the top insurance & first class lawyers up the tuchus. So, it's a hard battle to win.
Nonetheless, it is well worth the effort as hate crimes like Ratched has committed can come with LOTS of publicity on social media both old-fashioned (newspapers, radio, cable news) & online.
And a cherry on the sundae...she might even be lynched by State Regulatory Nursing Boards, & US regulatory Nursing bodies, and BASHED AROUND by State politicians, Governors, and may even hit the Big Time in Washington.
There are SO MANY possibilities! Be vigilant & tap into all of them, it is Our right, not a privilege!
This dybek needs be stamped out. She is from the line of haman!
Chodesh Adar (Purim) tov, Shabbat Shalom & Am Israel in Eretz Israel and around the Diaspora!!
Erin - You responded to a thread where I ended up having to block a person ("Alan, aka DudeInMinnetonka") because he was being intentionally irrational and ABUSIVE. As such, while I received an email notification that you responded to me in that thread, I can neither see your post there, nor respond to it there. Apparently, the blocking of that person blocks the entire thread from my view, including anyone else who posts to that thread (I can't even see the rest of *my* posts there). Thus I have been forced to respond to your post here instead:
>>"First off do you mean Allah or some guy named Alan. If you mean Alan who is he & pls provide link to this person's ideology and his views on Islamic Deflection."
It is interesting to note that you too cannot see Alan's posts in that thread. It would appear you blocked him as well (or perhaps he blocked you). Thus, while I could provide you a link to his post, you would not be able to see it. All I can say is, IF you are *actually* interested in reading his words, you can simply log off substack, then come back to this page. At that point you would be able to read his every inane utterance, though you would be unable to respond to any of them.
>>"I ask of you, Rad4Cap, teach us, enlighten us, all of us, here on this thread, what exactly is, Islamic deflection? We are waiting to understand you Salom aleikum Brother!"
Your overladen snark aside, "Islamic deflection" is the epithet Alan spit at me in place of ANY form of rational discourse regarding the ideas I presented here about rights. So that you may understand the full meaning of his words, I include the full text of his logically-unassailable post here:
>>"Tldr Islamic deflectionism".
LOL
In this context, "Islamic deflectionism" is a malicious attack on me (because Alan *explicitly* declares he didn't even read a single word I wrote), claiming I presented fraudulent arguments about rights as a systemically-practiced act of distraction away from the sins of this nurse and the grinding under the goosestepping heel of the State she supposedly deserves - all in the supposed service of Islam. (Of course, I was *actually* identifying what the individual's rights - and therefore justice - dictate she does and does NOT deserve for her sins here).
In other words, vomiting "Islamic deflectionism" was Alan's ad hom way of *dishonestly* EVADING (aka "deflecting" away from) having to address a single word I *actually* wrote. Instead he cowardly attacked a Straw Man of his own, deliberate manufacture - all the while snivelingly PROJECTING *his* sin of deflection onto me.
Or, put more simply, Alan was practicing Islam's principle of taqiyya. Talk about being NOTHING but a Crip to the Islamists' Bloods! Peas in an EVIL pod indeed!
Hope that answers your questions and identifies the fact your smarm was aimed at the wrong target.
If you have any earnest questions about what *I* actually wrote regarding the nurse and rights, please feel free to ask them here. :)
The hospital indeed properly has the right to refuse to associate with (aka employ) her if they see fit.
>>"The Oregon Board of Nursing investigate... might even be lynched by State Regulatory Nursing Boards, & US regulatory Nursing bodies, and BASHED AROUND by State politicians, Governors..."
And all of that would be *wrong*. People properly have the RIGHT to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on *their* judgement of her words and actions. The State *forcibly* prohibiting everyone and anyone from employing her because IT doesn't LIKE the ideas she expressed is NOT only a violation of HER rights, but is a violation of EVERYONE'S rights (ie a violation of the rights of all those who would hire her based on her nursing abilities, not her ideological convictions).
Put simply, as with religion, the State has NO right to 'allow' or 'forbid' a person from practicing ANY profession on the basis of their philosophy - no matter HOW despicable some may find that philosophy. This is true whether one is anti-semitic or, say, anti-trans.
In other words, the State has NO right to force anyone to "Bake that Cake" (or "Treat that Jew" or "Affirm that Trans"). The individual is NOT the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
That an individual may be a bigot does NOT change this FACT.
One thanks Alan for identifying the fact he doesn't let his SELF-CONFESSED *ignorance* about what someone has said (Alan EXPLICITLY declared he did NOT even read what I wrote) prevent him from coming to conclusions about what he did NOT read.
In other words, one thanks Alan for EXPLICITLY admitting the FACT that - exactly like this antisemitic nurse - reason is NOT his epistemological standard. That FACT certainly explains why - just like the Gazans - Alan blindly *attacks* the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
Talk about birds of a feather!
That says all one need say about Alan's self-professed EMPTY accusation here - not to mention his PROJECTION about 'deflection'.
Secret Hamas docs reveal torture, execution of gay terrorists — while some male Oct. 7 Israeli victims were raped in captivity
By Caitlin Doornbos
Published Feb. 4, 2025, 4:56 p.m. ET
882
Hamas tortured and executed terrorists within its ranks who allegedly had gay sex, shocking documents show — as sources added some male Israeli victims of the Oct. 7 massacre were raped in captivity.
The Iranian proxy terror group had a running list of recruits who were found to have failed Hamas’ “morality checks” by having same-sex relations — and they paid a heavy price, according to documents recovered by the Israel Defense Forces and shared with The Post.
The documents reveal the “crimes” that were allegedly committed by 94 Hamas recruits — lumping “homosexual conversations,” “flirting with girls without a legal relationship” and “sodomy” in with serious allegations of child rape and torture.
Hamas fighters arriving in a pickup truck at Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza City for the handover of hostage Agam Beger to the Red Cross, dated Jan. 30, 2025.
3
Hamas fighters gather for a hostage handover in Gaza City on Jan. 30.
AP
The allegations, dated between 2012 and 2019, involve recruits to Hamas’ intelligence, military and interior ministry and say the new members were eventually deemed “unacceptable” to continue working with the terror group because of their actions.
“He constantly curses God,” according to one allegation, which added, “Information was received that he sexually harassed a young child.“
SPAMMING more articles which have NOTHING to do with a single word I've written is just ANOTHER example of Alan's sin of DEFLECTION which he fraudulently tried to PROJECT onto others.
Apparently Alan has NO rational argument to offer in regard to ANYTHING I've *actually* written here. He can only try - quite unsuccessfully - to steer away from the FACT I previously identified: "the State has NO right to force anyone to "Bake that Cake" (or "Treat that Jew" or "Affirm that Trans"). The individual is NOT the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires. That an individual may be a bigot does NOT change this FACT."
And no amount of deflection and evasion by Alan will change that FACT either.
First off do you mean Allah or some guy named Alan. If you mean Alan who is he & pls provide link to this person's ideology and his views on Islamic Deflection.
Next up...I have done a thorough internet search for the phrase
'Islamic deflectionism'. I. Come. Up. Empty. (which is an English term for nothing.) Bubkas. Gournish. Efes. You can actually find the meaning of these words (noun s./noun pl.)
So, I ask of you, Rad4Cap, teach us, enlighten us, all of us, here, on this thread,
what exactly is,
Islamic deflection?
We are waiting to understand you.
Salom aleikum Brother!
Here are just a springling of some not helpful links I did find;
This nurse can express her abhorrent views in her own free time but she cannot withhold care from patients based on their ethnicity, religion, or political views. OHSU, the employer, is a public institution in a highly regulated industry, so there must be an investigation before any action is taken. If OHSU finds that Ms. Hart did not break any laws or violate any OHSU policies, they may choose to keep her on staff. I wouldn’t be surprised at such an outcome, but I’d be very concerned — both for the institution and for my own safety as a longtime OHSU patient.
>>"OHSU, the employer, is a public institution in a highly regulated industry"
You misapprehend me. As I've pointed out to others in different threads here, I've not denied this is the current practice - any more than I would have denied slavery was the current practice in the pre-Civil War South. My point, in both cases, is that that the current practice is (as I explicitly stated) "*wrong*". In other words, my point and argument here is the same one the Abolitionists made against the "industry" of slavery: that the State has NO right to treat the individual as *its* PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires. THAT is a VIOLATION of the individual's monopolistic right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
That the law commits this *grotesque* VIOLATION (be it against blacks or medical professionals) doesn't change that fact.
Put simply, I don't dispute your point that the State does the things you say it does. My entire point is that the State is WRONG to do those things. And you have made NO argument, presented NO facts, here against that point - ie you have left MY argument untouched and undisputed.
Terrible. I'd be amazed if she actually found an attorney to defend her, unless he was keen just to take her money, knowing in advance her chances of losing were 99%.
Not only Jewish, but Israeli doctors treat even Palestinian prisoners. Jews have ethics despite how we are portrayed by our haters, who tend to be projecting their own debasement onto us.
Dr. Yuval Bitton helped save Sinwar’s life in 2004 and when Sinwar was released in 2011 he acknowledged this and told Dr. Bitton he would repay the debt one day.
On October 7, Dr. Bitton’s nephew Tamir Adar was wounded while battling terrorists at Kibbutz Nir Oz and abducted to Gaza where he died hours later.
Not surprised. With the polarization that has occurred in the US, Portland, OR has become a Mecca for intolerant illiberals. And because of the general groupthink in the Portland culture they are not challenged when they veer into hate, anti-Semitism or violence.
The lunatic fringe has become unhinged since the massacre in Israel 10-7-2023 - antisemitism has become fashionable and vogue. Camesha Lynn Hart is a dangerous nut and patients are in peril where this demonic satanic witch is employed. I would advise all to take the time to contact Oregon Health and Science University Hospital and flood them with emails of disgust and outrage and condemn the hospital for allowing her to go on and the hospital must be antisemitic and racist itself!
While they are certainly birds of an antisemitic feather, there is an ENORMOUS difference between refusing to associate with (treating) someone (as this nurse declares) and MURDERING someone (as the Australian nurses claim).
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
Since your post here is but a duplicate of another post you wrote AT me, I'll simply repeat what I wrote there:
"You've posted this duplicate post at me twice, while doing NOTHING to link it to a single word I've written [especially since the comments you posted them at made two radically different points]. As such, I must ask why you posted them at me, and to what end?"
When people proudly boast that they not only *have* murdered people, but also *will* murder people in the future - and when such people are in a position to have actually carried out such crimes - I do NOT give them the benefit of a doubt (especially in the context of the atrocities committed by the Gazans, etc). I take them at their word and treat them accordingly.
Of course, again, that is what distinguishes those Australians from this nurse. BOTH are despicable. But claiming one will EXERCISE one's right not to associate with others and claiming one has VIOLATED the rights of others (as well as threatening to VIOLATE the rights of others in the future) are, as I noted, 'enormously different' - ie are completely OPPOSITE actions.
And you absolutely shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt. For all I know they were fired and an investigation was launched. And still, some people in some dark corners of the internet defended them, saying they were only joking.
Sigh. I *wish* those were the "dark corners of the internet". The *actual* "dark corners of the internet" are where "some people" do NOT claim the Australian nurses were joking about murdering Jewish patients, but still 'defend them'.
No there isn’t. They are the same vile human beings with the same mind disease. All are representative of every antisemite in any society. Hate filled bigots with severe mind rot.
>> JS: "They are the same vile human beings...hate filled bigots"
As I stated, they are indeed "birds of an antisemitic feather" (aka "bigots").
>>> R4C: "there is an ENORMOUS difference between refusing to associate with (treating) someone (as this nurse declares) and MURDERING someone (as the Austrailian nurses claim).
>> JS: "No there isn't"
Contrary to your truly grotesque claim here, bigotry (the EXERCISE of rights) and murder (the VIOLATION of rights) are complete OPPOSITES.
That you wish to PRETEND (LlE) and declare "murder" and "bigotry" are the SAME doesn't change the FACTS of REALITY that they are NOT - just as a Trans wishing to PRETEND (LIE) and declare "man" and "woman" are the SAME doesn't change the FACTS of REALITY that they are NOT.
But thanks for identifying the fact you are now preaching and practicing the "mind disease" and "severe mind rot" (aka the principles of) the Trans.
You've really drunk deeply from the kool aid of ALL the enemies of humanity - from the Trans to the Gazans. Crip to their Bloods indeed!
Demanding someone be raped because you don't like who they have consensual sex with???? Are you listening to yourself??? Her freedom of speech is not the issue here. Clearly she says whatever she wants to. The question is her ability and trustworthiness to provide compassionate care to all patients in her charge and her rabid hatred of a segment of society thatis obviously not possible. She is a danger to at least one group of people at least passively( would not intervene to prevent injury to life and limb) and quite possibly actively by her own words.
If she were a police officer ranting about blacks, would your opinion of her rights be the same???
>> "Demanding someone be raped because you don't like who they have consensual sex with???? Are you listening to yourself???"
More than YOU apparently. What I *actually* wrote is:
>>> "Demanding to VIOLATE [the nurse's] rights because she EXERCISES her rights in a way you don't LIKE is the *definition* of EVIL. It is NO different than demanding someone be RAP ED because you don't LIKE with whom she chooses to have *consensual* sex."
In other words, I *compared* two grotesque VIOLATIONS of the individuals rights which were perpetrated *because* the victims EXERCISED their rights. You correctly found one of those VIOLATIONS to be horrific. But you *intentionally* EVADED even acknowledging, let alone addressing, the other VIOLATION. Not only that, but you *also* engaged in that exact same EVASION regarding the *comparison* between those VIOLATIONS - the point of which was to demonstrate BOTH those VIOLATIONS are grotesquely EVIL, for the very SAME reason.
It is quite telling you *deliberately* OMITTED that comparison and that point.
In other words, while *I* was indeed listening to EVERYTHING I said, *you*, on the other hand, were sticking your fingers in your ears PRETENDING *not* to hear everything I said.
In both Logic and Ethics, there is a word for such EVASION and PRETENSE.
>>"Her freedom of speech is not the issue here."
Which is why I did NOT make a "free speech" argument. I made a "free association" argument.
Big difference! YUGE!
Put simply, your entire post here is an attack on Straw Men.
>>"This disgusting pos should never have the privilege of caring for human beings ever again. Her license should be revoked."
The fact that you don't LIKE her in no way grants you OWNERSHIP of her life and her effort. NOR does it in any way grant you OWNERSHIP of the life and effort of ANYONE else who voluntarily agrees to have her care for them. Their interaction is none of your or the State's f'ing business.
In other words, contrary to your premise here, they ALL have the RIGHT (not the "privilege", as you try to dismissively characterize it) to engage in voluntary human interaction.
Or put more directly, a "pos" doesn't become the PROPERTY of OTHERS (be it you or the State or ANYONE else), to be disposed of as those OTHERS see fit, to satisfy those OTHERS' desires simply *because* they are a "pos".
The belief that an individual has no rights *because* you don't LIKE them or their ideas is the EVIL philosophy of the Gazans.
Anyone and everyone (you, patients, doctors, hospitals, et al) all have the right to shun this "pos" out of existence. But NO one - certainly NOT the State - has the right to put a GUN to her head and to the heads of ALL those who wish to freely associate with her and FORCIBLY FORBID them from EXERCISING their right to voluntarily interact with each other.
Demanding to VIOLATE her rights because she EXERCISES her rights in a way you don't LIKE is the *definition* of EVIL. It is NO different than demanding someone be RAP ED because you don't LIKE with whom she chooses to have *consensual* sex.
You know if she said this about blacks or trans she'd be gone by now. But Jews? meh
Write the director of the hospital. I did. As a retired RN, BSN I was deeply offended by her abhorrent statements and I agree her license should be revoked.
>>"her license should be revoked"
No. People have the *right* to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on their judgement of her words and actions. Forcibly prohibiting everyone and anyone from employing her because you don't LIKE the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of *her* rights, but of *everyone's* rights (ie of those who would hire her based on her nursing abilities, not her ideological convictions).
>>"Write the director of the hospital."
Now THIS is the rights-respecting (rather than rights-violating) approach. As she is rightfully free to make her "statements", you are rightfully free to make your own "statements" expressing your 'offense' at her "abhorrent" statement. You are also rightfully free to withhold any and all association with that hospital so long as she is employed there - as well as inform the hospital you will recommend to anyone and everyone who will listen that they too should refuse to associate with the hospital so long as it chooses to associate with this nurse.
In THIS way, no one violates anyone's rights. Instead are all EXERCISING your rights.
Your comments are ridiculous. My son was treated at OHSU for multiple days. This vile, horrifically mentally ill woman has a right to free speech in America. She has no right to be employed in healthcare. To think this piece of evil shit had access to my son, his IV, his medications, his food after a football injury is incomprehensible. Her views are aligned with the genocidal, antisemitic Muslim nurses in Australia who were on video saying they’d kill Israelis in the hospital and assured us they already had. There are morals, standards and codes of ethics in healthcare. This woman is also extremely ignorant and low IQ, as she repeatedly refers to a “genocide” taking place in Gaza. No clear thinking, correctly educated, moral person repeats this lie and blood libel. If OHSU refuses to fire this nurse, if the Oregon Board Of Nursing refuses to terminate her license, no one, not just Jews, are safe seeking care at OHSU or at any Oregon healthcare facility.
>>"She has no right to be employed in healthcare."
She has EVERY right to associate with ANYONE and EVERYONE who voluntarily chooses to associate with her. And YOU have NO right to STOP any of them. Contrary to your FEELINGS here, they are NOT your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. Their life and their effort are their OWN not YOURS.
>>"this piece of evil shit"
You are certainly free NOT to associate with individuals you do not like. And you are certainly free NOT to associate with the individuals who hire them. And you are certainly free to try to convince anyone who would hire them or be treated by them to change their minds and NOT associate with her.
And you are free to do all these things because your life and your effort are your OWN. You are NOT the PROPERTY of ANYONE else - just as she is NOT your PROPERTY.
Of course, again, you are NOT free to put a gun to her head and EVERYONE else's heads (or have the State do it for you) and FORCIBLY FORBID all those individuals from VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another - because THEY are not YOUR PROPERTY. YOU putting a gun to their head and FORCIBLY FORBIDDING their CONSENSUAL human interactions is *you* VIOLATING *their* rights - ie that makes YOU a "piece of evil shit" WORSE than her (because as despicable as she is, SHE is violating NO one's rights).
>>"Her views are aligned with the genocidal, antisemitic Muslim nurses in Australia who were on video saying they'd kill Israelis in the hospital and assured us they already had."
This nurse made no such claims or threats about killing any of her patients or wishing to kill any of her patients. She simply stated she wished to EXERCISE her rights of FREE ASSOCIATION and FREE TRADE. That you try to grotesquely equivocate here and declare the EXERCISE of rights is the SAME as the VIOLATION of rights (murder in this case) is *another* EVIL act on your part. It is NO different than you claiming consensual SEX is the same as RAPE.
>>"There are morals and standards and codes of ethics in healthcare."
Every doctor, every nurse, every hospital, and every patient, etc has the right to ask others to associate with them under conditions they voluntarily and mutually agree. What NO one has the right to do is FORCIBLY FORBID them from signing agreements or making standards you don't LIKE - or FORCIBLY DEMAND they sign agreements or set standards you DEMAND.
IF a hospital or a doctor wishes to hire a nurse who is antisemitic, that is properly their RIGHT. Hell, if a hospital or doctor wishes to declare 'No Jews Allowed', again that is properly their RIGHT. Just as you and everyone else properly has the RIGHT to SHUN them into OBLIVION.
But what NO one has the right to do is put a GUN to their heads and declare they MUST treat Jews. What NO one has the right to do is put a GUN to their heads and declare IF they do NOT treat Jews, then you will FORCIBLY FORBID them from treating ANYONE, regardless of the voluntary consent of others who WANT to be treated by them.
What YOU are doing is the SAME EVIL that was done to that bakery. You are demanding - at the point of a government gun - that this nurse be FORCED to "Bake that Cake" or forever be FORBIDDEN from baking ever again.
As that was a VILE VIOLATION of the bakers' rights, so to is it a VILE VIOLATION of this nurse's rights.
>>"no one, not just Jews are safe"
If YOU do not feel "safe" interacting with her or anyone else, then you are FREE to WALK AWAY from her (as you are free to try to convince anyone and everyone else to do the same). What you are NOT free to do is substitute, at the point of a gun, YOUR judgement about "safety" (or ANYTHING else) for EVERYONE ELSE'S judgement about *their* OWN safety (that is the EVIL philosophy which created the WHOLESALE violation of rights that was the government's response to Covid).
Put simply, like the Gazans you (properly) revile, you are treating others as nothing but your meat puppets.
You have to STOP acting like the Gazans. You have to STOP being nothing but the Crips to their Bloods.
Nurses do not have the right to refuse to care for a patient. We DO have the right to request a change of assignment for sincerely held moral or ethical reasons. I have never seen a coworker do that in 37 years of practice. If she harbors such hate in her heart, nursing is not the job for her. She is a stain on our profession and I hope she loses her license as she lacks the compassion and judgment to do the job as is required.
>>"Nurses do not have the right to refuse to care for a patient."
So your claim is that nurses do NOT have the right of free association. On what basis do you make that claim?
Nurses are NOT the PROPERTY of others. Others have NO claim to the life and effort of nurses - any more slave owners had a claim to the life and effort of blacks.
I suspect you are conflating contractual agreements with rights (especially given your reference to 'changes of assignment'). Contracts and rights are NOT the same thing.
>>"I hope she loses her license"
Since she is NOT violating anyone's rights (because she is NOT the PROPERTY of others and thus NO one has a 'right' to her services), but she is instead EXERCISING her right to her OWN life and her OWN effort, NO one - certainly NOT the State - has the right to put a gun to her head and FORCIBLY forbid her from interacting with anyone else who VOLUNTARILY wishes to interact with her. NOR does anyone - certainly NOT the State - have the right to put a gun to anyone else's head and FORCIBLY forbid them from VOLUNTARILY interacting with her. NONE of those individuals are your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. And they are certainly NOT the State's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
Treating other human beings as your PROPERTY is the OPPOSITE of "compassion" and rational "judgement". It is the very *definition* of EVIL.
Your lust to put a gun to other people's heads because you don't LIKE their ideas is NO different that the lust of the Gazans to put guns to the heads of Israelis because they don't LIKE the Israelis' ideas.
Talk about *proving* my point that some here are nothing but Crips to the Gazans' Bloods!
Some professions hold you to a higher standard of moral conduct. Accepting that role is acceptance of that responsibility. She is not forced to be a nurse. Caring for other human beings at their most vulnerable moments of their lives is a privilege, not a right. That's why you study and take an exam to receive a license,which you maintain by keeping your knowledge base current. The public trusts you to do the right thing. Many professions have a moral/ ethical code that holds your behavior to a higher standard. You are free to choose a profession of that nature or not.
I base my knowledge of nursing on 37 years in the profession. What do you base yours on?
>>"Some professions hold you to a higher standard of moral conduct."
The State treating the individual as its PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires, all at the point of its GUN, is the LOWEST "standard of moral conduct" possible - ie it is the very DEFINITION of EVIL.
Yet you hold that grotesque EVIL up as the 'height' of morality.
That is called a complete moral INVERSION!
>>"Accepting that role is acceptance of that responsibility"
That is false.
If YOU wish to accept an idea, you are quite free to do so. And you (and doctors, hospitals, patients, et al) are free to associate ONLY with those who preach and practice that same idea - ie you are ALL free to choose to act in accord with your "moral/ ethical code". Moreover, you are ALL free NOT to associate with anyone who does NOT accept your ideas.
And you are FREE to do ALL these things because you are the SOLE, monopolistic owner of your OWN life and your OWN effort. As such, you - and you ALONE - dispose of YOUR life and effort as YOU, not anyone else, sees fit.
Of course, what you are NOT free to do is put a government gun to the heads of ANYONE else and FORCIBLY FORBID them from VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another if they do NOT accept your idea. And that is because, like you, they are the SOLE, monopolistic owners of THEIR lives and THEIR effort. As such, they - and they ALONE - dispose of THEIR lives and effort as THEY, not YOU, see fit.
Put simply, if a doctor or a hospital (or anyone else) so wishes, they have the *absolute* RIGHT to declare 'No Jews Allowed'. Of course, everyone else has the *absolute* RIGHT to SHUN them into oblivion.
Your (proper) disgust and horror at the idea of 'No Jews Allowed' (be it from someone baking a cake or treating a wound) doesn't CHANGE these FACTS.
To put it succinctly: your *feelings* do NOT make *anyone* your CHATTEL.
>>"I base my knowledge...on 37 years in the profession. What do you base yours on?"
On the FACT that the individual is NOT your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires.
It is a shame that, in *all* those 37 years, you NEVER learned that *basic* moral FACT.
No offense, Dude, but what you’re saying is idiotic. Professions have standards — that’s what makes them professions. “I have the right to hire that unethical lawyer.” No you don’t, because his ethics fails deny him access to law as a profession. It’s that simple. If you can’t live up to the standard of *premum non nocere*, you don’t have a right to work in healthcare. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
>>"Professions have standards"
No. Individuals have standards. And every individual is rightfully free to associate with those who agree with his ideas - just as every individual is rightfully free to refuse to associate with those who disagree with his ideas.
>>"I have the right to hire that unethical lawyer"
Invalid comparison. All professions related to law (from the military, to the police, to the courts, etc) pertain to the use of coercive force - ie non-consensual interaction. Any and all other professions - including medicine - pertain to VOLUNTARY human interaction, aka consensual interaction.
Of course, the ONE thing that is true of ALL professions - including law - is that NO one in ANY of them may VIOLATE the rights of ANY individual for ANY reason. NO one - including the law - may treat the individual as their CHATTEL.
>>"you don't have a right to work in healthcare"
You have EVERY right to interact in ANY way with ANY other individual who VOLUNTARILY consents to that interaction. This is true whether one is talking about 'baking that cake' or 'treating that wound'. And that is because your life and your effort (and the lives and effort of ALL those other people) are your OWN. They are YOUR monopolistic PROPERTY.
You are NO one's CHATTEL.
What you do NOT properly have (and the State certainly does NOT have) is the right to put a gun to someone else's head and FORCIBLY FORBID them from freely associating with anyone and everyone who voluntarily agrees with their ideas (be they doctors, patients, tinkers, tailors, or candlestick makers). NONE of those people are your PROPERTY. You have NO right to dispose of them as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires.
In other words, contrary to your principle here, bigots do NOT lose their right to their OWN lives and their OWN effort - they do NOT become your PROPERTY - simply *because* they are bigots.
Put simply, your claim here that other human beings ARE your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires, is not only "idiotic", but is the very *definition* of EVIL.
You’re a wackjob. If you’re a lawyer in Texas and you violate the (rather voluminous) TX lawyer’s code of conduct, you are from then on (or at least until reinstatement), denied the right to practice law in Texas. End of story.
“your claim here that other human beings ARE your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires, is not only "idiotic", but is the very *definition* of EVIL.” I don’t want to be offensive, but that is literally insane. And not what I’m saying at all.
She consents to treating anyone who needs care in the facility that employs her. You’re saying she has a right to choose which people deserve to be cared for. Can she refuse to treat black people? Criminals - rapists, murderers, etc.? People who have strokes, heart attacks, because they smoked and are obese and it’s their own fault? Alcoholics with liver disease? If that’s the case, she shouldn’t be working in a hospital. I’m sure she could find a job where there is zero chance she’d have to care for Jews. Perhaps Gaza?
>>"She consents to treating anyone who needs care in the facility that employs her."
That is not true, which is why everyone - including you - is upset here. She has explicitly stated she does NOT consent to treating Jews.
>>"she shouldn't be working in a hospital"
If a hospital wishes to hire *only* employees who will treat everyone and anyone, that is their right. As such, they have the right to refuse to hire - or to fire - anyone who does not consent to such a condition of employment.
Of course, the converse is true as well. If a hospital wishes to hire employees who will only treat certain conditions or certain people and not others, that is ALSO their right. And, in turn, anyone (doctors, nurses, medical personnel, patients, etc) who doesn't like that fact is free NOT to associate with that hospital in any way, shape, or form.
Put simply, a hospital properly has the *absolute* right to say 'No Jews (or Blacks or Muslims etc etc ad nauseam) Allowed' - just as WE properly have the *absolute* right to shun them into oblivion.
What we do NOT properly have (and the State certainly does NOT have) is the right to put a gun to their heads and FORCIBLY FORBID them from freely associating with anyone and everyone who voluntarily agrees with their ideas (be they doctors, patients, etc). NONE of those people are OUR PROPERTY. We have NO right to dispose of them as WE see fit, to satisfy OUR desires.
Put simply, contrary to your principle here, bigots do NOT lose their right to their OWN lives and their OWN effort simply *because* they are bigots.
Perhaps they were unaware that she had restrictions on whom she would treat. It may well be that this became an issue subsequent to her employment. In that case they have every right to dismiss her, unless it is hospital policy to refuse to treat Jews. However, if Oregon State University Hospital is a community hospital (as opposed to a private one) it is required to treat everyone who comes there for treatment.
Pluralistic societies do not tolerate hate
"Pluralistic societies do not tolerate hate"
Rights-defending States do not "tolerate" - ie they STOP - the VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort. Whether one LIKES or HATES an individual and/or his ideas doesn't change this fact.
The SAME is true when it comes to the EXERCISE of the individual's rights. Whether one FEELS that the reason a person disposes of his OWN life and his OWN effort is based on "hate" or "love" or ANY other emotion does NOT somehow *magically* transform that individual into one's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as one sees fit, to satisfy one's desires. The individual life and effort REMAIN his OWN regardless of one's FEELINGS about that individual's motivations.
Put simply, one's EMOTIONS do not make the individual one's CHATTEL to do with as one WISHES. THAT is the EVIL 'thinking' and behavior of those you rail against in your other posts here. You should NOT be preaching, let alone practicing, THEIR grotesque philosophy. That just makes you a Crip to their Bloods.
Dude, I suggest you use more CAPS. That will make your argument more RIGHT
“Associate” is a funny word choice for providing medical care and it’s the hospitals right to evaluate her ability to do her job and fire her if she cannot or will maliciously refuse care. We all have the *right* the live and receive care in a hospital.
>>""Associate" is a funny word choice for providing medical care"
It is a very COMMON word when one speaks of rights (as in the right of "Free Association" - which encompasses ALL voluntary human interaction, including interactions involving "medical care").
>>"it's the hospital's right to evaluate her"
Despite me EXPLICITLY making exactly such points, you seem to *feel* - for some unidentified reason - that I disagree with this idea.
On the basis of the words I have *actually* written here, please identify how exactly you came to this bizarre, counter-factual conclusion.
>>"We all have the *right* the live [sic]"
This statement doesn't make grammatical sense. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect you mean "We all have the *right* TO live". If so, I must point out the fact that NO one has the "right" to live *by* treating OTHER human beings as their PROPERTY. In other words, the Southern Slave Owner had NO right to live by forcing blacks pick cotton - just as you have NO right to live by forcing doctors to treat your wounds.
IF an individual VOLUNTARILY agrees to pick cotton for you, then you have the contractual PERMISSION to live by that means - just as IF an individual VOLUNTARILY agrees to treat your wound for you, then you have the contractual PERMISSION to live by that means. But if NO one VOLUNTARILY agrees to do either of those things FOR you, then - to put it in crude terms - you are sh*t out of luck.
Put simply, the fact that you WISH to live does NOT *magically* place a claim on ANYONE else's life and effort. NO one is your CHATTEL - not for ANY reason.
>>"We all have the *right* [to]...receive care in a hospital"
Contrary to your EVIL premise, there is NO such thing as the "right" to the life and effort of other human beings. Again, NO one is your CHATTEL.
No ifs.
No ands.
No buts.
PERIOD.
A lot of wording…for nothing.
And you land on “Evil”. Which is telling of your unbalanced morals.
Look, CAPSLOCK isn’t a good use of your time…
I would encourage you to absorb the thoughts of those around you. Assuming you don’t live in a lonely bowl of word salad? Although I think you might.
Forcing this narrative down the (very) few sub-stackers’ feeds is pretty darn boring considering everyone else’s HUMAN instinct and that of a medical board says the nurse’s *right* (as you so obsessively write) is not a nuanced issue, it’s a potential for a medical malpractice issue.
But your nuance, and sad excuse for mock trial precedent of “cotton picking” (good lord you are reaching).
I’ll go back to living life now lol.
Note that Lisa did not address a SINGLE word I wrote. Instead she simply vomited invective.
One thus thanks Lisa for confessing the fact the ONLY 'defense' she has for treating other human beings as her PROPERTY is the kindergartner's 'Nu uh, you a poopyhead!'
Licensure =/= property. End of.
Now chill out and read what people are actually saying instead of repeat-puking up your bizarre obsessions.
Someone should explain that HAMAS doesn't get to start a war, commit war crimes, lose the war and then claim to be the victim.
This is great writing. Accurate and to the point. Bravo
Should lose her license immediately
>>"Should lose her license immediately"
No. People have the right to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on their appraisal of her words and actions. Prohibiting everyone from employing her because you don't like the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of HER rights, but of EVERYONE'S rights.
I am a retired nurse, as an RN in a clinical environment, you do not get to choose whom you treat. I’ve treated criminals and rapists. If you violate your oath, you lose your license.
>>"you do not get to choose whom you treat"
That is rightfully up to you and the person who employs you - NOT the State or anyone else.
>>"If you violate your oath, you lose your license."
I don't dispute this is the current practice - just as I would not have disputed slavery was the then-current practice in the historic South. What I *am* disputing is the idea that the State has the 'right' to engage in this practice - just as I would have disputed the idea that the State had the 'right' to engage in slavery.
Both practices are wrong for the *same* reason: they are, as I noted, the violation of not only your right to freely practice your profession, but a violation of everyone else's right to hire you if they so wish.
>>"I've treated criminals and rapists."
And, if that is a contractual condition you have voluntarily agreed to for employment with a given hospital or doctor, then you are properly held to that agreement. Just as, if - as part of your contractual agreement with a hospital or doctor - they have voluntarily agreed to let you choose whom you will or will not treat, then they are properly held to that agreement.
Of course, the State has NO right to forcibly dictate (as it currently does) to either you OR the hospital/doctor/employer what contractual agreement you both VOLUNTARILY choose as the conditions for the two of you associating with each other.
Put simply, NO one - not a Jewish person, not a Trans person, not a rapist - NO one has a *right* to dispose of YOUR life and YOUR effort as THEY see fit. IF you refuse to associate with (treat) such individuals, that is your RIGHT. And the State has NO right to PUNISH you for EXERCISING your rights.
That is the point I was making.
Naturally, just as you have the RIGHT to associate or refuse to associate with ANYONE for ANY reason, so too everyone else (hospitals, doctors, patients, the rest of the world) has the right to associate or refuse to associate with *you* for any reason - including your choices of association.
In other words, you properly have every right to hang a sign on your practice which reads: "No Jews Allowed". And everyone else properly has the right to shun you into oblivion. But NO one has the right to put a GUN to your head and FORBID you from working for, or treating, anyone who AGREES with (or doesn't care about) your anti-Jewish bigotry. NO one gets to treat you as THEIR PROPERTY, to be disposed of as THEY see fit, to satisfy THEIR desires. This is *especially* true of the State - which properly exists to STOP all such violators, not *systematize* their violations at the point of its GUN.
You are just so wrong.
"You are just so wrong."
Sorry, but 'Nu uh!' ain't an argument. Try again.
You think you’re extremely smart. You aren’t. You just talk a good game.
Nu uh is your argument lol. Let’s leave it to the lawyers to wrap this violation of the oath nurses take in a bow. Low standards of human behavior is all I’m hearing from your trolls. Really hard sell to protect this person’s job when she is a liability.
Did you just compare enabling service discrimination based on race or religion to slavery? Come off it you old goat.
Keliren posted the following response here, then quickly blocked me in the hopes I wouldn't see it or be able to respond to it - all so that it would FALSELY appear as if I had no rational response to her(?) post.
Talk about dishonest!
"Did you just compare enabling service discrimination based on race or religion to slavery? Come off it you old goat."
No. I compared:
'Treating a bigot's life and effort as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires'
to
'Treating a black person's life and effort as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires'
If you can NOT see the fact that both acts are the *same* VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort, that is *your* moral failing, not mine.
Goodbye.
The comment is still there. I think everyone on this thread sees you’re unwell.
>>"The comment is still there."
One thanks Lisa for confessing the fact she doesn't grasp the SIMPLE concept of "blocked me". That level of *lack* of understanding certainly explains the rest of your posts here about *far* more COMPLEX concepts.
>>"you're unwell"
Lisa has now spent her last few post vomiting nothing but vitriol at me. Since she has reduced herself to nothing but a mindlessly SNARLING ANIMAL, there is nothing rational left to do but BLOCK the ABUSER.
At least she'll now LEARN what the concept of "blocked me" actually means. LOL
Um, no . This is not an issue of ‘free speech’- sorry. This is an issue of professional ethics and safety for patients who are subject to treatment in any facility she works at. She has a right to say that but not a right to treat patients if she makes it clear she won’t treat patients based on their identity.
>>"This is an issue of professional ethics"
Like Ari here, you seem to have misapprehended my argument. I did not make a "free speech" argument. I made a "free association" and "free trade" argument.
>>"She has a right to say that"
We agree on this idea.
>>"but not a right to treat patients if she makes it clear she won't treat patients based on their identity"
We vehemently disagree on this idea.
I would direct you to my second post to Ari in this very thread (it begins with the quote: "You do not get to choose whom you treat"). You will find arguments there which rebut this claim you have baldly asserted (ie have in no way supported) here.
Sorry dude, but you’re talking out of your a$$. There’s a difference between whether or not you can have a cake made and health care. You can spout as much pseudo intellectual bs here as your heart desires, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
>>"Sorry dude, but you're talking out of your a$$"
"Sorry dude", but the kindergartner's 'Nu uh, you a poopyhead!' ain't an argument.
This is a discussion about advanced intellectual concepts. One would *hope* anyone seeking to speak about them would do so at THAT intellectual level, not the level of a pre-rational child.
Try again.
>>"There's a difference between whether or not you can have a cake made and health care."
When it comes to your right to your OWN life and your OWN effort and WHO has the RIGHT to dispose of them - you or others - NO, there is NO difference between them. Moreover, you have said NOTHING, and provided NO evidence, to even support - let alone prove - your Southern Slave Owner idea to the contrary.
The fact is, whether you are interacting with someone to 'Bake that Cake' or 'Treat that Wound', your rights (and theirs) remain the SAME. In other words, contrary to your EVIL premise here, that individual does NOT *magically* become your PROPERTY, for you to dispose of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires in *either* instance.
Put simply, just as it was a VIOLATION of the black person's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort for him to be treated as the PROPERTY of his "Master" - regardless of whether that "Master" commanded him (at the point of a government GUN) to "Bake that Cake" or "Treat my Wound", so too it is a VIOLATION of ALL individuals' rights to their OWN lives and their OWN effort for them to be treated as *your* PROPERTY - regardless of whether you command him (at the point of a government GUN) to "Bake that Cake" or "Treat your Wound".
But thanks for confessing the fact you FEEL... (can't say "THINK", because you can't provide a single FACT of REALITY to support your Southern Slave Owner idea; instead you can only stomp your feet and spit invective) ...you FEEL that YOU have the 'right' to the life and effort of OTHERS. And you lay CLAIM to your 'rightful' human PROPERTY when you FEEL it is 'important' to you (like when it comes to your health).
"Sorry dude" but - despite your WISHES to the contrary - NO human being is your CHATTEL. Not when it comes to making your food. NOT when it comes to tending your wounds. Not for ANY reason - EVER.
PERIOD.
That said, I do appreciate you so *righteously* and nakedly declaring that human beings ARE your PROPERTY. Like rap ists, most people try to HIDE the fact that they preach and practice such a blatant EVIL.
“This is a discussion about advanced intellectual concepts”
🤣😂😂🤣
Brigitte Gabriel
@ACTBrigitte
Subscribe
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
You've posted this duplicate post at me twice, while doing NOTHING to link it to a single word I've written. As such, I must ask why you posted them at me, and to what end?
Sorry guy. as a nurse she probably took the Nightingale Oath upon graduation:
I solemnly pledge myself before God and in the presence of this assembly to pass my life in purity and to practice my profession faithfully. I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug. I will do all in my power to maintain and elevate the standard of my profession and will hold in confidence all personal matters committed to my keeping and all family affairs coming to my knowledge in the practice of my calling. With loyalty will I endeavor to aid the physician in his work and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care.
I believe her public statements violate this oath.
>>"I believe her public statements violate this oath."
While there *are* other, legally-binding ethical standards (of which I have identified my objections; see my second response to Ari in this very thread - the one which begins with the quote "You do not get to choose whom you treat"), it is my understanding that the "Nightingale Oath" is a ceremonial, not legal, oath.
you can lose a professional license for something that is unethical in the profession but not illegal. That is what this would come down to I think.
>>"you can lose a professional license for something that is unethical..."
You didn't read the post to which I directed you. I say this because I explicitly addressed the "license" issue in it. Specifically, I identified the fact that the "license" issue is a rights-VIOLATING, not a rights-DEFENDING, action by the State - ie the State has no 'right' to do so, any more that the State had the 'right' to treat blacks as slaves. Neither bigots nor blacks are the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
Put simply, I presented rights-based arguments against such rights-violating State action, the same way Abolitionists presented rights-based arguments against the rights-violating State action of slavery. Thus I, again, direct you to those arguments as *rebuttal* to your assertions here.
Prohibiting everyone from employing her because you don't like the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of her rights, but of EVERYONE'S rights.
I might be misunderstanding you and I am sorry if I am but I was focused on the statement you made before that (the one I have pasted just above). The individual to whom you directed that reply has no power to take away her license. But the licensing board for the particular state does. I assume she could (and should) be fired from the staff at this particular hospital as she does cast doubt on the quality of medical care at this hospital. They should not have to worry about extra staffing in case 'the nurse who hates Jews is on duty'
The state professional organization and state licensing board will take it from there to the extent their power allows. And if the State pulls her license he can appeal the decision. But she is deprived employment only in the nursing profession in that state. That's very limited. Is that a loss of rights severe enough to have a court rule in her favor for license reinstatement?
The oath is ceremonial in professional organizations and the assuming of political office. The current era trivializes oaths it seems but is a brief summary of your mission going forward. You have spent 4 years in medical education and you should be well aware of what this oath means and be willing to practice in the profession to it's utmost ethical standards which should override any personal prejudices.
I wish this woman had enough sense to know that with this attitude she should NOT be anywhere in the medical profession. I am of Christian upbringing but I wouldn't want this kind of person treating a family member. Who knows what the next trigger is going to come down the line to create another prejudice in her mind. Her rationalization for her prejudice is irrational. Frankly, I think she's dangerous because she is ethically weak.
This nurse Ratched can & should lose her job. T'he Oregon Board of Nursing investigate
www.oregon.gov/osbn/pages/index.aspx
this heinous being's behaviour. The problem might be, as it is here in Canada, regulatory bodies are armed with over the top insurance & first class lawyers up the tuchus. So, it's a hard battle to win.
Nonetheless, it is well worth the effort as hate crimes like Ratched has committed can come with LOTS of publicity on social media both old-fashioned (newspapers, radio, cable news) & online.
And a cherry on the sundae...she might even be lynched by State Regulatory Nursing Boards, & US regulatory Nursing bodies, and BASHED AROUND by State politicians, Governors, and may even hit the Big Time in Washington.
There are SO MANY possibilities! Be vigilant & tap into all of them, it is Our right, not a privilege!
This dybek needs be stamped out. She is from the line of haman!
Chodesh Adar (Purim) tov, Shabbat Shalom & Am Israel in Eretz Israel and around the Diaspora!!
Erin (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
Erin - You responded to a thread where I ended up having to block a person ("Alan, aka DudeInMinnetonka") because he was being intentionally irrational and ABUSIVE. As such, while I received an email notification that you responded to me in that thread, I can neither see your post there, nor respond to it there. Apparently, the blocking of that person blocks the entire thread from my view, including anyone else who posts to that thread (I can't even see the rest of *my* posts there). Thus I have been forced to respond to your post here instead:
>>"First off do you mean Allah or some guy named Alan. If you mean Alan who is he & pls provide link to this person's ideology and his views on Islamic Deflection."
It is interesting to note that you too cannot see Alan's posts in that thread. It would appear you blocked him as well (or perhaps he blocked you). Thus, while I could provide you a link to his post, you would not be able to see it. All I can say is, IF you are *actually* interested in reading his words, you can simply log off substack, then come back to this page. At that point you would be able to read his every inane utterance, though you would be unable to respond to any of them.
>>"I ask of you, Rad4Cap, teach us, enlighten us, all of us, here on this thread, what exactly is, Islamic deflection? We are waiting to understand you Salom aleikum Brother!"
Your overladen snark aside, "Islamic deflection" is the epithet Alan spit at me in place of ANY form of rational discourse regarding the ideas I presented here about rights. So that you may understand the full meaning of his words, I include the full text of his logically-unassailable post here:
>>"Tldr Islamic deflectionism".
LOL
In this context, "Islamic deflectionism" is a malicious attack on me (because Alan *explicitly* declares he didn't even read a single word I wrote), claiming I presented fraudulent arguments about rights as a systemically-practiced act of distraction away from the sins of this nurse and the grinding under the goosestepping heel of the State she supposedly deserves - all in the supposed service of Islam. (Of course, I was *actually* identifying what the individual's rights - and therefore justice - dictate she does and does NOT deserve for her sins here).
In other words, vomiting "Islamic deflectionism" was Alan's ad hom way of *dishonestly* EVADING (aka "deflecting" away from) having to address a single word I *actually* wrote. Instead he cowardly attacked a Straw Man of his own, deliberate manufacture - all the while snivelingly PROJECTING *his* sin of deflection onto me.
Or, put more simply, Alan was practicing Islam's principle of taqiyya. Talk about being NOTHING but a Crip to the Islamists' Bloods! Peas in an EVIL pod indeed!
Hope that answers your questions and identifies the fact your smarm was aimed at the wrong target.
If you have any earnest questions about what *I* actually wrote regarding the nurse and rights, please feel free to ask them here. :)
>>"This nurse...can & should lose her job."
The hospital indeed properly has the right to refuse to associate with (aka employ) her if they see fit.
>>"The Oregon Board of Nursing investigate... might even be lynched by State Regulatory Nursing Boards, & US regulatory Nursing bodies, and BASHED AROUND by State politicians, Governors..."
And all of that would be *wrong*. People properly have the RIGHT to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on *their* judgement of her words and actions. The State *forcibly* prohibiting everyone and anyone from employing her because IT doesn't LIKE the ideas she expressed is NOT only a violation of HER rights, but is a violation of EVERYONE'S rights (ie a violation of the rights of all those who would hire her based on her nursing abilities, not her ideological convictions).
Put simply, as with religion, the State has NO right to 'allow' or 'forbid' a person from practicing ANY profession on the basis of their philosophy - no matter HOW despicable some may find that philosophy. This is true whether one is anti-semitic or, say, anti-trans.
In other words, the State has NO right to force anyone to "Bake that Cake" (or "Treat that Jew" or "Affirm that Trans"). The individual is NOT the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
That an individual may be a bigot does NOT change this FACT.
Tldr
Islamic deflectionism
"Tldr Islamic deflectionism"
One thanks Alan for identifying the fact he doesn't let his SELF-CONFESSED *ignorance* about what someone has said (Alan EXPLICITLY declared he did NOT even read what I wrote) prevent him from coming to conclusions about what he did NOT read.
In other words, one thanks Alan for EXPLICITLY admitting the FACT that - exactly like this antisemitic nurse - reason is NOT his epistemological standard. That FACT certainly explains why - just like the Gazans - Alan blindly *attacks* the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
Talk about birds of a feather!
That says all one need say about Alan's self-professed EMPTY accusation here - not to mention his PROJECTION about 'deflection'.
Secret Hamas docs reveal torture, execution of gay terrorists — while some male Oct. 7 Israeli victims were raped in captivity
By Caitlin Doornbos
Published Feb. 4, 2025, 4:56 p.m. ET
882
Hamas tortured and executed terrorists within its ranks who allegedly had gay sex, shocking documents show — as sources added some male Israeli victims of the Oct. 7 massacre were raped in captivity.
The Iranian proxy terror group had a running list of recruits who were found to have failed Hamas’ “morality checks” by having same-sex relations — and they paid a heavy price, according to documents recovered by the Israel Defense Forces and shared with The Post.
The documents reveal the “crimes” that were allegedly committed by 94 Hamas recruits — lumping “homosexual conversations,” “flirting with girls without a legal relationship” and “sodomy” in with serious allegations of child rape and torture.
Hamas fighters arriving in a pickup truck at Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza City for the handover of hostage Agam Beger to the Red Cross, dated Jan. 30, 2025.
3
Hamas fighters gather for a hostage handover in Gaza City on Jan. 30.
AP
The allegations, dated between 2012 and 2019, involve recruits to Hamas’ intelligence, military and interior ministry and say the new members were eventually deemed “unacceptable” to continue working with the terror group because of their actions.
“He constantly curses God,” according to one allegation, which added, “Information was received that he sexually harassed a young child.“
SPAMMING more articles which have NOTHING to do with a single word I've written is just ANOTHER example of Alan's sin of DEFLECTION which he fraudulently tried to PROJECT onto others.
Apparently Alan has NO rational argument to offer in regard to ANYTHING I've *actually* written here. He can only try - quite unsuccessfully - to steer away from the FACT I previously identified: "the State has NO right to force anyone to "Bake that Cake" (or "Treat that Jew" or "Affirm that Trans"). The individual is NOT the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires. That an individual may be a bigot does NOT change this FACT."
And no amount of deflection and evasion by Alan will change that FACT either.
Which part of hate not being tolerated in a pluralistic society triggers you?
Hmm Red4Cap,
First off do you mean Allah or some guy named Alan. If you mean Alan who is he & pls provide link to this person's ideology and his views on Islamic Deflection.
Next up...I have done a thorough internet search for the phrase
'Islamic deflectionism'. I. Come. Up. Empty. (which is an English term for nothing.) Bubkas. Gournish. Efes. You can actually find the meaning of these words (noun s./noun pl.)
So, I ask of you, Rad4Cap, teach us, enlighten us, all of us, here, on this thread,
what exactly is,
Islamic deflection?
We are waiting to understand you.
Salom aleikum Brother!
Here are just a springling of some not helpful links I did find;
https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/deflection/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
https://www.middleeasteye.net/discover/inshallah-wallah-salam-islamic-expressions-mainstream
And a couple you could read to update whatever it is your try to tell the world
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X10002007\
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1986/wiesel/interview/
This nurse can express her abhorrent views in her own free time but she cannot withhold care from patients based on their ethnicity, religion, or political views. OHSU, the employer, is a public institution in a highly regulated industry, so there must be an investigation before any action is taken. If OHSU finds that Ms. Hart did not break any laws or violate any OHSU policies, they may choose to keep her on staff. I wouldn’t be surprised at such an outcome, but I’d be very concerned — both for the institution and for my own safety as a longtime OHSU patient.
>>"OHSU, the employer, is a public institution in a highly regulated industry"
You misapprehend me. As I've pointed out to others in different threads here, I've not denied this is the current practice - any more than I would have denied slavery was the current practice in the pre-Civil War South. My point, in both cases, is that that the current practice is (as I explicitly stated) "*wrong*". In other words, my point and argument here is the same one the Abolitionists made against the "industry" of slavery: that the State has NO right to treat the individual as *its* PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires. THAT is a VIOLATION of the individual's monopolistic right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
That the law commits this *grotesque* VIOLATION (be it against blacks or medical professionals) doesn't change that fact.
Put simply, I don't dispute your point that the State does the things you say it does. My entire point is that the State is WRONG to do those things. And you have made NO argument, presented NO facts, here against that point - ie you have left MY argument untouched and undisputed.
Terrible. I'd be amazed if she actually found an attorney to defend her, unless he was keen just to take her money, knowing in advance her chances of losing were 99%.
But the bitch isn't anti-semitic, right?
No! She's for HUMANITY!
May she never get sick and may she never be treated by a Jewish doctor. May her death be her reward.
Okay….that's not really helpful. Hate doesn't end hate.
Not only Jewish, but Israeli doctors treat even Palestinian prisoners. Jews have ethics despite how we are portrayed by our haters, who tend to be projecting their own debasement onto us.
Israeli doctors cured Sinwar’s brain cancer while he was in prison for slaughtering Arabs in Gaza!
Dr. Yuval Bitton helped save Sinwar’s life in 2004 and when Sinwar was released in 2011 he acknowledged this and told Dr. Bitton he would repay the debt one day.
On October 7, Dr. Bitton’s nephew Tamir Adar was wounded while battling terrorists at Kibbutz Nir Oz and abducted to Gaza where he died hours later.
Not surprised. With the polarization that has occurred in the US, Portland, OR has become a Mecca for intolerant illiberals. And because of the general groupthink in the Portland culture they are not challenged when they veer into hate, anti-Semitism or violence.
A Mecca…ironic 🤔
Agreed about Portland.
PS: it appears you accidentally double-posted this comment to the thread here.
She must be fired. Substitute "blacks" for "Jews" in anything she's said and ask yourself what would happen.
This woman is vile. Signed, an actual Palestinian.
Thank you.
The lunatic fringe has become unhinged since the massacre in Israel 10-7-2023 - antisemitism has become fashionable and vogue. Camesha Lynn Hart is a dangerous nut and patients are in peril where this demonic satanic witch is employed. I would advise all to take the time to contact Oregon Health and Science University Hospital and flood them with emails of disgust and outrage and condemn the hospital for allowing her to go on and the hospital must be antisemitic and racist itself!
I agree. This is an open and shut case. It should have been about a five minute decision. She openly states that she wants us to die.
She has friends in Australia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuv2GF1X0r8
While they are certainly birds of an antisemitic feather, there is an ENORMOUS difference between refusing to associate with (treating) someone (as this nurse declares) and MURDERING someone (as the Australian nurses claim).
Brigitte Gabriel
@ACTBrigitte
Subscribe
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
Since your post here is but a duplicate of another post you wrote AT me, I'll simply repeat what I wrote there:
"You've posted this duplicate post at me twice, while doing NOTHING to link it to a single word I've written [especially since the comments you posted them at made two radically different points]. As such, I must ask why you posted them at me, and to what end?"
The two Australians likely didn't literally kill anyone, but it was enough for the authorities to open an investigation and fire the two.
>>"likely didn't literally kill anyone"
When people proudly boast that they not only *have* murdered people, but also *will* murder people in the future - and when such people are in a position to have actually carried out such crimes - I do NOT give them the benefit of a doubt (especially in the context of the atrocities committed by the Gazans, etc). I take them at their word and treat them accordingly.
Of course, again, that is what distinguishes those Australians from this nurse. BOTH are despicable. But claiming one will EXERCISE one's right not to associate with others and claiming one has VIOLATED the rights of others (as well as threatening to VIOLATE the rights of others in the future) are, as I noted, 'enormously different' - ie are completely OPPOSITE actions.
And you absolutely shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt. For all I know they were fired and an investigation was launched. And still, some people in some dark corners of the internet defended them, saying they were only joking.
Sigh. I *wish* those were the "dark corners of the internet". The *actual* "dark corners of the internet" are where "some people" do NOT claim the Australian nurses were joking about murdering Jewish patients, but still 'defend them'.
No there isn’t. They are the same vile human beings with the same mind disease. All are representative of every antisemite in any society. Hate filled bigots with severe mind rot.
>> JS: "They are the same vile human beings...hate filled bigots"
As I stated, they are indeed "birds of an antisemitic feather" (aka "bigots").
>>> R4C: "there is an ENORMOUS difference between refusing to associate with (treating) someone (as this nurse declares) and MURDERING someone (as the Austrailian nurses claim).
>> JS: "No there isn't"
Contrary to your truly grotesque claim here, bigotry (the EXERCISE of rights) and murder (the VIOLATION of rights) are complete OPPOSITES.
That you wish to PRETEND (LlE) and declare "murder" and "bigotry" are the SAME doesn't change the FACTS of REALITY that they are NOT - just as a Trans wishing to PRETEND (LIE) and declare "man" and "woman" are the SAME doesn't change the FACTS of REALITY that they are NOT.
But thanks for identifying the fact you are now preaching and practicing the "mind disease" and "severe mind rot" (aka the principles of) the Trans.
You've really drunk deeply from the kool aid of ALL the enemies of humanity - from the Trans to the Gazans. Crip to their Bloods indeed!
This disgusting pos should never have the privilege of caring for human beings ever again. Her license should be revoked.
Demanding someone be raped because you don't like who they have consensual sex with???? Are you listening to yourself??? Her freedom of speech is not the issue here. Clearly she says whatever she wants to. The question is her ability and trustworthiness to provide compassionate care to all patients in her charge and her rabid hatred of a segment of society thatis obviously not possible. She is a danger to at least one group of people at least passively( would not intervene to prevent injury to life and limb) and quite possibly actively by her own words.
If she were a police officer ranting about blacks, would your opinion of her rights be the same???
>> "Demanding someone be raped because you don't like who they have consensual sex with???? Are you listening to yourself???"
More than YOU apparently. What I *actually* wrote is:
>>> "Demanding to VIOLATE [the nurse's] rights because she EXERCISES her rights in a way you don't LIKE is the *definition* of EVIL. It is NO different than demanding someone be RAP ED because you don't LIKE with whom she chooses to have *consensual* sex."
In other words, I *compared* two grotesque VIOLATIONS of the individuals rights which were perpetrated *because* the victims EXERCISED their rights. You correctly found one of those VIOLATIONS to be horrific. But you *intentionally* EVADED even acknowledging, let alone addressing, the other VIOLATION. Not only that, but you *also* engaged in that exact same EVASION regarding the *comparison* between those VIOLATIONS - the point of which was to demonstrate BOTH those VIOLATIONS are grotesquely EVIL, for the very SAME reason.
It is quite telling you *deliberately* OMITTED that comparison and that point.
In other words, while *I* was indeed listening to EVERYTHING I said, *you*, on the other hand, were sticking your fingers in your ears PRETENDING *not* to hear everything I said.
In both Logic and Ethics, there is a word for such EVASION and PRETENSE.
>>"Her freedom of speech is not the issue here."
Which is why I did NOT make a "free speech" argument. I made a "free association" argument.
Big difference! YUGE!
Put simply, your entire post here is an attack on Straw Men.
Try again.
>>"This disgusting pos should never have the privilege of caring for human beings ever again. Her license should be revoked."
The fact that you don't LIKE her in no way grants you OWNERSHIP of her life and her effort. NOR does it in any way grant you OWNERSHIP of the life and effort of ANYONE else who voluntarily agrees to have her care for them. Their interaction is none of your or the State's f'ing business.
In other words, contrary to your premise here, they ALL have the RIGHT (not the "privilege", as you try to dismissively characterize it) to engage in voluntary human interaction.
Or put more directly, a "pos" doesn't become the PROPERTY of OTHERS (be it you or the State or ANYONE else), to be disposed of as those OTHERS see fit, to satisfy those OTHERS' desires simply *because* they are a "pos".
The belief that an individual has no rights *because* you don't LIKE them or their ideas is the EVIL philosophy of the Gazans.
Anyone and everyone (you, patients, doctors, hospitals, et al) all have the right to shun this "pos" out of existence. But NO one - certainly NOT the State - has the right to put a GUN to her head and to the heads of ALL those who wish to freely associate with her and FORCIBLY FORBID them from EXERCISING their right to voluntarily interact with each other.
Demanding to VIOLATE her rights because she EXERCISES her rights in a way you don't LIKE is the *definition* of EVIL. It is NO different than demanding someone be RAP ED because you don't LIKE with whom she chooses to have *consensual* sex.
I often mock with:
the Arab cries out, the Jew hit me back 🤯
The nurse cries out, consequences hit me back😜
Fake nurse. Real nurses put all of their feelings aside, as well as their ideologies and biases when they are taking care of patients.
Ho-hum, it’s in Oregon where the fabled gate of hell is located.