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.
Why? She most certainly violated the physician's code of ethics.
"Physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination (Opinion 9.12, "Patient-Physician Relationship: Respect for Law and Human Rights"), nor can they discriminate against patients with infectious diseases (Opinion 2.23, "HIV Testing")."
"The AMA serves as an umbrella organization of state medical associations and national specialty societies. Because of this role, the AMA is not in a position to investigate allegations of unprofessional or unethical conduct at the local level. Instead, we defer to state medical societies and national specialty societies to conduct fact finding investigations when such allegations are made. If the physician in question is a member of the AMA, the investigative body will forward its findings to the AMA for review by the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) as set forth in the AMA Bylaws and CEJA’s Rules. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs does not review complaints submitted by the general public. "
No, I assume what seems to be the logical assumption to make. Since there was no information that the doctor was in any way incompetent and since her letter showed only compassion and concern, referring to her as a doctor "like that" would logically only refer to her political views not matching yours and not her performance as a physician.
And I have no viewpoint, so I don't "only seem to assume whatever suits my viewpoint." My only viewpoint here was that your post reflected more poorly on you than on the doctor. Anything beyond that is your assuming whatever suits your viewpoint, not me.
Right. As I said previously, you're a bigot. I got that already, no need to repeat it.
Yes you made assumptions and leapt to false conclusions that suited your own viewpoint, created your own strawman to attack, ranted about political beliefs, and now you are making a personal attack calling me a bigot.
All because I said I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor like that. A doctor who is incapable of putting her personal religious beliefs aside to perform as an ethical medical professional to treat a baby and work with lesbian parents. Simple as that.
Yes, but not allowing sexuality to be considered a protected class could run afoul of equal protection. It won't really matter if the courts handle it or referendums, this will be the next battleground after the SC rules on same sex marriage. And it will be a battleground that the right will lose on again.
No, it couldn't run afoul of the Equal Protection clause. The Equal Protection Clause (and the Constitution in general) requires a governmental actor - it doesn't apply to non-governmental actors.
No, I assume what seems to be the logical assumption to make. Since there was no information that the doctor was in any way incompetent and since her letter showed only compassion and concern, referring to her as a doctor "like that" would logically only refer to her political views not matching yours and not her performance as a physician.
And I have no viewpoint, so I don't "only seem to assume whatever suits my viewpoint." My only viewpoint here was that your post reflected more poorly on you than on the doctor. Anything beyond that is a case of you assuming whatever suits your viewpoint, not me.
Right. So right after sneering at my assumption, you then make a statement that proves that assumption was true - that your refusal to deal with the doctor as a doctor had nothing whatsoever to do with the doctor's skills as a doctor. That qualifies as bigotry. It's the usual paradox of tolerance thing that's common as dirt with people on the left.
I prefer to be treated by ethical medical professionals whose focus is on the wellbeing and health of the patients, not on their own wellbeing and personal religious beliefs.
It's that simple. Everything else is your own imagination nothing that I have posted.
If you want to be treated by a doctor who is more concerned about her own personal religious or political beliefs than your health and wellbeing, go for it.
Of course the bigot is the doctor. She refuses to treat an innocent baby because she doesn't agree with the parents sexuality. I'm sorry but any doctor who would refuse to treat a baby because of their religious beliefs should lose their license
This is a WELL Baby visit, Doctor never refused treatment concerning any baby
It's the equal right of this Doctor not to accept someone as a patient.
Just as that same somebody... can decide not to accept her as their Doctor
This is not bigotry, it's called fairness. It's ethical too. They both hold that right equally which seems to burn you up
Anyone who sees anything other than fairness is likely looking right in the mirror.
Again both parties have equal rights. Unless of course, you are the Biggot you so despise
And I'd hate to think such a thing. So let's be fair eh?
I prefer to be treated by ethical medical professionals whose focus is on the wellbeing and health of the patients, not on their own wellbeing and personal religious beliefs.
It's that simple. Everything else is your own imagination nothing that I have posted.
If you want to be treated by a doctor who is more concerned about her own personal religious or political beliefs than your health and wellbeing, go for it.
There is nothing about Doctor that shows "she is more concerned about her well being" just because she didn't accept this new patient.
And there is no Doctor "like her" whatever that means. My guess is it wasn't flattering
Despite her kind explanation which wasn't required... nor was the extra effort required in referring this baby out... my guess is the bigot parents went to the media to demean her. They don't like equal rights, they want it one sided. Only they get to decide whether their baby becomes a new patient of this Doctor, the Doc has no say so.
So many physicians will just refuse people without explanation. And they never bother to help find this person a Doctor.
They are often very busy caring for the sick so it's understandable.
This Doctor went the extra mile twofold and this is what it got her. So sad
Originally Posted by hammertime33 Why? She most certainly violated the physician's code of ethics.
"Physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination (Opinion 9.12, "Patient-Physician Relationship: Respect for Law and Human Rights"), nor can they discriminate against patients with infectious diseases (Opinion 2.23, "HIV Testing")."
-AMA Code of Ethics
The Doctor refused to accept said baby as a patient.
This reminds me of the Muslim cab drivers kicking people out of their cabs because they had alcohol in their luggage. This is America, you put personal feelings aside and do your job.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06
Someone doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. HINT: That person is quoted in this post.
Another HINT: The doctor proved what a lying hypocrite she is by stating : Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice
It's very clear the Hippocratic Oath was not violated.
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.
