U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-20-2015, 10:48 PM
 
898 posts, read 658,758 times
Reputation: 2809

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IheartWA View Post
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?

AMA Policy Regarding Sexual Orientation
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2015, 10:52 PM
 
511 posts, read 362,122 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by IheartWA View Post
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.

She referred the baby elsewhere instead

whoop de doo....


.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 11:00 PM
 
7,497 posts, read 9,304,837 times
Reputation: 7394
Oh there you go, take out your own issues on an innocent child. Just about describes a good portion of the "religious" population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 11:08 PM
 
1,789 posts, read 1,352,373 times
Reputation: 3655
Quote:
Originally Posted by IheartWA View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 11:14 PM
 
511 posts, read 362,122 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito View Post
Oh there you go, take out your own issues on an innocent child. Just about describes a good portion of the "religious" population.
Nothing was "taken out" on this innocent baby

Baby was referred to another Doctor
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 11:21 PM
 
Location: Delray Beach
1,136 posts, read 1,373,701 times
Reputation: 2504
Aren't there more important issues to be concerned about than this??
REALLY?
So find another doctor already! Maybe even a GAY one?

And be thankful you don't live in Iran.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 11:25 PM
 
20,979 posts, read 15,646,554 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 11:49 PM
 
4,230 posts, read 5,758,510 times
Reputation: 10032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito View Post
Oh there you go, take out your own issues on an innocent child. Just about describes a good portion of the "religious" population.

It's not like the doctor took the baby and drop kicked it into a pool of alligators.

If the doctor in question hide their values and the parents found out, would those parents still want service? I'm guessing not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 11:59 PM
 
511 posts, read 362,122 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by IheartWA View Post
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)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 12:47 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, not Paris. #MAGA.
9,693 posts, read 5,310,176 times
Reputation: 9676
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top