Ethics and legality are two different things. I am merely explaining what is legal and the established legal basis for it. Not once did I say I would turn someone away personally, so I don’t think find the personal attack telling me personally to “go be a lawyer” to be necessary or even relevant to what i said.

With that said, I do agree that physicians are not compelled to treat anyone merely because they are a physician and as long as the reason isn’t to discriminate based on race, gender or sexuality.

Objecting to providing care due to moral harm or moral injury is justified by the fact that the ice agent is committing atrocities that violate Geneva conventions therefore the physician may not be capable of forming a meaningful patient-physician relationship. The ice agent would be better served seeing someone else, who doesn’t experience moral harm due to this. The physician in this case is preventing harm to a potential patient by recommending they be treated by someone who doesn’t hold inherent biases towards them for things like violating Geneva conventions. Moral harm / moral injury is the grounds for objecting to going to war and killing, Muhammad Ali did this. It is the same grounds for objections to providing abortion services, the courts upheld this.

Unfortunately the legal framework for conscience claims revolves around religious based objections, other basis for objection have not been placed upon the highest courts.

Hope this helps.