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.
First, refusing to provide medical treatment is not religious expression. If someone shows up with an injury caused by their own negligence (say, a car accident while driving intoxicated), they get treatment. Prisons treat incarcerated murderers who are sick. Military physicians treat enemy personnel who are wounded and then captured. It's bigotry, with a religious excuse. Period.
Second, by what logic - even if a physician feels compelled to discriminate against gays - does one then refuse treatment to a helpless baby?
Third, while perfectly legal in Michigan, this act is morally reprehensible - but there's no shortage of people who will be falling all over themselves to excuse the shameful behavior of this physician because for some people, as long as discrimination is done in the name of religion (so long as it's done in the name of a religion they like, that is), it must be rationalized and justified and excused.
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the reality that physicians in private practice are NOT obligated to accept everyone who comes along as a new patient. They have the right to pick and choose who they take on as patients, and they do, based on a number of reasons. It's legal everywhere.
Apparently you're also unfamiliar with the details of the story too. The original article stated that the women had chosen this particular pediatrician to care for their baby after having interviewed a number of pediatricians looking for one- likely would have been during the pregnancy as this is common practice among those expecting children. Not exactly an emergency situation. Also according to the article the pediatrician informed the women that she wouldn't accept the baby as a new patient, but it was a partner of this pediatrician who informed them that the refusal was based on the doctor's belief that she would be unable to form an appropriate doctor-patient ( parent) bond with the couple because she didn't approve of their lesbian relationship. It apparently wasn't the doctor who refused to take the baby as a new patient who informed them of this reason, and who is to say that the other doctor was right in telling these woman such a thing? It also doesn't say when the doctor declined to accept the child, just that she sent a letter to the couple informing them of her decision. It wasn't, as your ranting about refusing to treat a helpless baby would imply, that they showed up in the office with a desperately ill child who was refused treatment and turned away.
The article also says that they were informed of this pediatrician's decision around September of 2014, and waited several months to go public with their experience. Whatever their motive in deciding to go public ( IMO it's an attempt at "victimhood" on their part- "lookit us, poor us, card-carrying members of the LGBT community, discriminated against because of our sexual orientation", rather than any real concern for the health of their baby), again, it's not like they took their sick baby to this doctor who then refused to take care of it. Since they stated in the article they had interviewed other pediatricians prior to selecting this one, they've surely chosen another pediatrician who has accepted their baby as a patient and is now providing it with the care it needs.
Just another anecdotal story to add to the LGBT arsenal used to intimidate, or browbeat into submission those who may not embrace the lifestyle with wild enthusiasm.
Yeah. There was another doctor available. The baby was attended to by a qualified doctor.
As the headline says, there is nothing illegal about it. But the headline implies there ought to be. I disagree because this was not an emergency case. In the ER all restrictions are off - rich, poor, gay, child molester, cop, Martian, whatever; treat them all.
This wasn't in the ER, and it wasn't an emergency-type situation. Doctors in private practice have the right to refuse to take on anyone they choose as a new patient, for any reason.
And in ER situations the obligation is only to stabilize the patient.
First, refusing to provide medical treatment is not religious expression. If someone shows up with an injury caused by their own negligence (say, a car accident while driving intoxicated), they get treatment. Prisons treat incarcerated murderers who are sick. Military physicians treat enemy personnel who are wounded and then captured. It's bigotry, with a religious excuse. Period.
Second, by what logic - even if a physician feels compelled to discriminate against gays - does one then refuse treatment to a helpless baby?
Third, while perfectly legal in Michigan, this act is morally reprehensible - but there's no shortage of people who will be falling all over themselves to excuse the shameful behavior of this physician because for some people, as long as discrimination is done in the name of religion (so long as it's done in the name of a religion they like, that is), it must be rationalized and justified and excused.
What you call "shameful' is subjective. So who are you to cast dispersions on what is shameful and what is not?
Crack open the bible and read up on what it has to say about sodomites
Why don't you crack it open and point out the verse that says do not treat the children of "sinners"?
If the "good doctor" refused to treat the children of all "sinners" she wouldn't have much of a practice.
Guess she just picks and chooses which "sinners" are bad enough for her to refuse service to their children.
This wasn't in the ER, and it wasn't an emergency-type situation. Doctors in private practice have the right to refuse to take on anyone they choose as a new patient, for any reason.
And in ER situations the obligation is only to stabilize the patient.
However the doctor had already agreed to take the baby as a patient after meeting the parents, set the appointment before the baby was born, THEN decided to not even show up on the day of their appointment. She could have easily told them when she first met them, or refused to set an appointment with them, or even called to cancel the appointment before the appointment date. But no, she didn't bother to show up for the appointment that SHE had agreed to because god says? Seriously?
Me too. I wonder what other imaginary voices this doctor "hears".
Billions of people during meditation hear their inner self and the soul world.....which is the God of all.
Another set of "Special interest group" of whiners. If 95% of the voting public did not want to acknowledge sodomites and their marriage, why are they surprised that some people don't want anything to do with them? And the more they push the more they will isolate themselves.
People do not want to deal with "special groups" and their issues. People want to live and let live.
Be a sodomite and leave people alone. If someone does not want to deal with you it is because they are AFRAID OF YOUR LAWSUIT THAT STARTS OFF AS......................"It is because I am gay......blah.blah
Crack open the bible and read up on what it has to say about sodomites
but where does it say to SHUN these people they consider sodomites?? what about the other forms of sin?? are they to be shunned, too?? so anyone who has committed any sort of sin according to interpretations of what is written in the bible is to be shunned?
I'll grant you, my knowledge of the bible is likely far smaller than yours, but I just do not recall any thou shalt nots about this..... unlike the thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, etc. etc.
I am straight but that isn't important to me regarding my thoughts about this issue. I have some awesome gay friends who have been way past what would be considered "good" friends. I love them like family. My thoughts regarding this issue (this thread) is that if a doctor didn't want to treat my baby because of my (our, to include both parents) lifestyle I wouldn't want her to. I can only imagine all the tension between doctor and parents down the road if the doctor was forced to see the baby against her will. Why would anyone want to push this issue into forcing the doctor to do this? Tell the doctor how bad you believe her decision is, then go on to find a doctor who welcomes the patient without having any issues regarding the parents' lifestyle. IMO this would make a MUCH easier road to walk regarding care for the baby. In my own personal experiences over the years regarding a doctor for my children, there definitely needs to be a good rapport between the doctor & the parents in order to avoid personality conflicts which could potentially lead to affecting the care of the child. I don't think the doctor was wrong in giving the patient to another colleague, I think she probably thought about what I mentioned above and did what she considered to be the best thing in order to avoid the above mentioned problems.
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?
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.
what you call shamefull behavior...l
