Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very interesting story, since I am in a law and ethics class as it relates to the healthcare industry.
Actually, doctors are held to some of the highest ethical standards of any profession. A doctor can refuse patients under certain circumstances such as failure to pay for services, failure to followed n agreed upon treatment program, failure to keep appointments.
Doctors can refuse treatment (non-emergency) if the case could result in an accusation of malpractice. Say, a woman 8 months pregnant seeks care, has no other records of previous prenatal care. They can refuse to take on a patient if professional boundaries are breached (sexual relationship), they can refuse abusive patients that are a threat to the staff in the office.
They can refuse a specific treatment if it's against their morals religious, or personal beliefs, but they can't, however, refuse to take on a patient based on religion, race, sexual orientation, or "I just don't like you."
The doctor did arrange other care for the couple, at least that was in place. If I were the doctors collegues, I would have a heart to heart talk with her about why she chose the medical profession, and what does the oath she took really mean?
I'm going to quote myself here.
I explained in this post, #40, the American Medical Association's position on when a doctor can refuse a patient. There's even a link to the AMA's site on medical ethics.
I'm supposing this doctor is in a group practice. If she was with a hospital, the Joint Commission would probably crawl up that hopsital's a** with a microscope.
Even if what this doctor did is not against the law in Michigan, the state's medical board might have plenty to say about this.
Going to be interesting to see how this unfolds.
I'm going to quote myself here.
I explained in this post, #40, the American Medical Association's position on when a doctor can refuse a patient. There's even a link to the AMA's site on medical ethics.
I'm supposing this doctor is in a group practice. If she was with a hospital, the Joint Commission would probably crawl up that hopsital's a** with a microscope.
Even if what this doctor did is not against the law in Michigan, the state's medical board might have plenty to say about this.
Going to be interesting to see how this unfolds.
How what unfolds?
She didn't accept the well baby as a new patient in her practice.
I'm going to quote myself here.
I explained in this post, #40, the American Medical Association's position on when a doctor can refuse a patient. There's even a link to the AMA's site on medical ethics.
I'm supposing this doctor is in a group practice. If she was with a hospital, the Joint Commission would probably crawl up that hopsital's a** with a microscope.
Even if what this doctor did is not against the law in Michigan, the state's medical board might have plenty to say about this.
Going to be interesting to see how this unfolds.
You don't get it. Nothing is going to unfold. The AMA has zero to do with the legal issue here. The state medical board isn't going to do squat because if they do they would get sued and promptly lose.
This couple didn't go to the Doctors church and ask for medical attention, they went to the doctors office. What religious belief says not to treat the child of a "sinner"?
The way things are going anyone will be able to claim anything is a religious belief to do whatever they want.
Liberty vs. tyranny.
I prefer liberty. If someone won't serve me based on any factor, I'll move on understanding that it is their right to do so.
I'm going to quote myself here.
I explained in this post, #40, the American Medical Association's position on when a doctor can refuse a patient. There's even a link to the AMA's site on medical ethics.
I'm supposing this doctor is in a group practice. If she was with a hospital, the Joint Commission would probably crawl up that hopsital's a** with a microscope.
Even if what this doctor did is not against the law in Michigan, the state's medical board might have plenty to say about this.
Going to be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Here is your link-
The baby is not a patient of the Doctor there is no patient being discriminated against by their doctor.
And twofold, it would be impossible since babies cannot even eat on their own, poop in the toilet, etc..little lone have a sexual preference in which a doctor could discriminate against.
AMA Policies on LGBT Issues
General Policies:
H-65.992 Continued Support of Human Rights and Freedom. Our AMA continues (1) to support the dignity of the individual, human rights and the sanctity of human life, and (2) to oppose any discrimination based on an individual's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin or age and any other such reprehensible policies. (Sub. Res. 107, A-85; Modified by CLRPD Rep. 2, I-95; Reaffirmation A-00; Reaffirmation A-05; Modified: BOT Rep. 11, A-07) H-65.983 Nondiscrimination Policy. The AMA affirms that it has not been its policy now or in the past to discriminate with regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. (Res. 1, A-93; Reaffirmed: CCB Rep. 6, A-03; Modified: BOT Rep. 11, A-07) H-65.990 Civil Rights Restoration. The AMA reaffirms its long-standing policy that there is no basis for the denial to any human being of equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities commensurate with his or her individual capabilities and ethical character because of an individual's sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or transgender status, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin, or age. (BOT Rep. LL, I-86; Amended by Sunset Report, I-96; Modified: Res. 410, A-03; Reaffirmation A-05)
I'm repulsed by the doctor's behavior, but don't think that criminalizing the doctor's behavior (or taking away her livelihood as a matter of legal "punishment" or fining the doctor) is the answer either. At the end of the day, if a doctor is so closed-minded as to refuse to treat a baby because of the baby's parents' sexual orientation, I don't want the law "forcing" that doctor to do so as that doctor may not provide adequate service. Enacting such legislation will only drive hate-filled doctors into the closet; they'll be forced to treat the children of gay couples and gay couples themselves, but do gay couples really want their health entrusted to people who hate them? Only in the latter case, gay couples wouldn't necessarily know they were receiving substandard, potentially life-altering (in a bad way) care. I say let the "market" work. For every doctor who refuses to treat people based on their sexual orientation, I'm sure there are many, many more who would absolutely treat these people. I say keep the status quo and encourage others to show/express that they are willing to treat whomever, which will help provide gays, etc., with a better options of doctors to see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
