Judge: Doctor a Conscientious Objector

[NVMojo]

BOSTON (AP) - A federal judge ruled Friday that the Army was wrong to deny a doctor's application for conscientious objector status, and ordered that she be discharged.

Dr. Mary Hanna, who had agreed to serve four years on active duty and another four years in the reserve in exchange for the Army's paying for her education, argued that her religious beliefs changed since she signed up for the Army program.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner agreed, writing, "it is clear from the evidence in the record that the act of serving in the Army violates Hanna's conscience."

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/oct/06/100604021.html

[MADem]

1. Bullshit...she changed her mind after they paid the bill?

Hanna's attorney, Louis Font, did not immediately return a call for comment Friday evening. Her attorney has said she would repay the $184,000 the government invested in her education at the Tufts University School of Medicine.

...................

That is the least she can do--they ought to charge her interest...of course, the government is now EIGHT years behind on a replacement for her, and as a result, servicemembers in the line of fire, those who may have suffered grievous wounds, will be short one doctor that they might REALLY need. Heckuva job. Selfish woman.

It's one thing not to want to pick up that weapon and shoot, but that's not her job--she was trained, at government expense and in a set-aside slot at a prestigious medical school, to save lives of uniformed members--not attack anyone. She's weaseling on her deal. I don't always side with the services on these matters, but in this case, I do. I think the judge made a bad call, and doesn't understand the medical service corps or the personnel pipeline.

I think the Army should appeal the decision to make the point, frankly.

[Solo_in_MD]

3. Good Call

[Ms. Toad]

7. Actually,

What the court should have required is that she convert to the civilian equivalent of the military program. http://bms.brown.edu/financialaid/index.php?file=content/federalscholar.html

That way she would still be doing essentially what she agreed to do when she took the money - repay the scholarship year for year with service. At the end of those 4 years she will have to start from ground zero as a physician without whatever benefits her military service would have provided her - or she may decide to stay in the under served area to which she was assigned which will get medical assistance to an area that needs to be served anyway.

When I was familiar with these programs several years ago, the slots were not set aside for the scholarship programs - you got into the medical school on your own merits and then obtained the scholarships on your own.

[MADem]

12. Good points, all, and you're right about the non-reserved slots, but

the schools, all other things being equal, will cheerfully, indeed eagerly, take a military scholarship student ahead of others, because the bill WILL be paid.
National Health Service is uniformed (remember C. Everett Coop?) but not all of them affect it. Not sure if she has a problem serving in uniform, or what.

It's unfortunate that the military has lost eight years of MD-in-the-pipeline with her change of heart. She's turning her back on those who need her.

[heliarc]

2. Really?

I kind of feel like the Hippocratic oath should be grounds enough for conscientious objector status... Hell, the Downing Street memo should be grounds enough at this point.

[acmejack]

4. I kind of feel like you're absolutely correct!

Having worn the uniform for several tours of duty, I believe some among us are totally uninformed as to what it entails. Even as to exactly what duties are demanded of those in the Medical Corps, as those so quick to call Bullshit are apparently ignorant of. I would ask they educate them selves further upon those duties before judging others so harshly.

[MADem]

5. Those quick to call bullshit spent decades in uniform

And had need of doctors and corpsmen during that time.

You don't sign up, accept the training, make a promise to support those needing the medical help, and then chisel on the deal.

Guess you never had need of medical support during your time in uniform. Lucky, lucky you. Would that the kids coming home minus limbs were so lucky--and now, thanks to this woman, they are short of one set of hands to help them. For want of a doctor during the golden hour, servicemembers die.

[acmejack]

6. You're telling me YOU spent decades in UNIFORM?

IS that a fact? I would like to know what branch when and where. You want to talk like that to me lets get down to cases.

[MADem]

10. USN. I retired as a senior officer recently.

Why should that surprise you? Plenty of us here have served.

[atreides1]

8. I like this part

"You don't sign up, accept the training, make a promise to support those needing the medical help, and then chisel on the deal."

So haven't all the members of the military who are being used as cannon fodder by this administration
already "chisel on the deal". They all signed up, they accepted the training, but most importantly, they all swore an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States, as yet they haven't exactly adhered to that oath have they.

The passing of the Patriot Act, the Pro-Torture Law, and the whole concept of the "Unitary Executive"
is all contrary to the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, but has the military made any attempt to adhere to their oath, no they have not. We who have worn the uniform all swore allegiance
to the Constitution, as have those who wear the uniform, so if this doctor is wrong, then those troops are just as wrong, for they too have failed.

[MADem]

9. The role of the military is NOT to make policy. That is NOT how our

country is run. We have civilian control of the military so we aren't like TURKEY or PAKISTAN, where we wake up one morning and a GENERAL is on tv telling us not to worry, everything is just fine.

It is NOT the military's job to weigh in on the Patriot Act or torture. That is the job of the CIVILIAN leadership of the justice, state and defense departments. It's also the job of the CONGRESS, who passed those shameful laws in the first place.

See, we don't ELECT generals. Their job is to give their very best advice to the civilian leadership, but the civilians make the decisions. You can gripe about some of the generals being wussie about telling the truth, but what you want them to do would get them fired in a heartbeat. Uniformed personnel are not supposed to interfere in politics or policy.

The Supreme Court makes decisions on issues of constitutionality. So far, they've yet to rule against the Monkey. That's not saying that they won't or will, but they're the ones with the clout. If the monkey decided to flaunt their rulings, then we'd see impeachment proceedings. The situation would have to deteriorate much more than it is right now before we saw soldiers in the streets.

[springhill]

14. If I recall correctly...............

Those obeying orders that constitute war crimes can be prosecuted for those crimes. As in World War II, it was not an excuse that you were given orders that were criminal. You had an obligation NOT to follow those orders than constitue crimes.

[MADem]

17. Yes, they can be prosecuted But caring for the sick is not a war crime.

Attacking an objective in uniform is not a war crime. Shooting someone who is firing at you isn't a war crime.

Obeying a lawful order (even if you personally don't like the particular war) is not a war crime.

I'm not going to get into a big back-and-forth about this shit. Reread Geneva. Reread the UCMJ. Recall the chain of command. The ones in uniform aren't the ones making policy. So long as they aren't ordered to torture or abuse people, and go along with it willingly, they're off the hook--like the war or not. The private guarding the road in Ramadi is not culpable for the crimes committed by others in the secret prison. It's not a 'borg' thing.

[gratuitous]

11. The government broke the deal with Hanna first

The promise from the civilian leadership is that they won't deploy the military without good cause. Every person in uniform, despite what they might say about "defending freedom" or "serving the country" has been betrayed by our current government. It's up to each person in the military to decide their own comfort level with being deceived and exploited. Some will file it away in a dark corner of their minds, and hopefully it will never fester, never erupt some months, years or decades down the line.

Others will determine that their own beliefs won't hold up under the contradiction. And they will object based on that. I'm not in a position to judge either choice without full access to the facts. To say that Dr. Hanna or some anonymous Private Slovik is being untrue requires a great deal more information than is available in this short report, and anyone that presumes to "know" what is in either person's heart is either self-deluded or a fool.

[MADem]

13. I am neither, what I do know is that this woman wasn't a young

kid being conned with big bonuses and a promise of college, this was a mature, thirty year old woman who waited until she graduated from med school to have her change of heart. Sorry if I look askance at her convenient timing.

Her actions will result in some "anonymous Private Sloviks" getting less than optimal care.

[gratuitous]

15. Again, how do you know that?

How do you know what was in her heart when she signed on? When did you talk with her, and what testimony did you hear that makes you so sure that she has had a "convenient" change of heart? Please be as specific as possible. Have you ever been through a trial? Have you ever been at risk of life, liberty or property in a court proceeding that turns on something as ephemeral as your opinion?

Without further information, anyone who presumes to know -- as you claim -- is indeed either self-delusional or a fool. I'm leaning toward the former, but it's a tough call without . . . further information.

[MADem]

16. I know what I know because I am human

And I understand human nature.

I ask myself the question: Who benefits?

And I factor that question into my conclusions.

Look, we aren't going to agree here. You think she's fine for taking advantage before having her epiphany, and I smell a rat.

We'll leave it at that.

[noamnety]

18. She has my support.

One of the medics who treated my daughter on the gulf march last spring talks about amputating a prisoner's hands in Iraq in the movie "The Ground Truth." The prisoner - a big terrorist who thank god they caught - was hung for three days by his wrists, followed by the amputation which was at that point a medical necessity after the blood supply had been cut off for so long. Then they let him go, because - oops - he wasn't a terrorist afterall. Our bad.

Like I said, she has my support if she refuses to be part of that.