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.
How about in the way I just described it to you? It never says it's unethical to refuse to treat a patient because of the patient's race or religion or sexual orientation.
Yes it says exactly what you've quoted
Now actually READ IT instead of continuously trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Again, "THE PATIENT"
This is NOT HER PATIENT.
This baby has no Doctor, it was just born 6 days ago. No doctor has rendered any services or agreed upon
accepting this baby after the paperwork was submitted. The paperwork is the contract both parties study then agree upon
You understand that right? That there is a ton of legal paperwork ON BOTH SIDES which BOTH SIDES agree to
before services are rendered (aka the agreement is accepted by both parties aka the baby is accepted as her patient)
You cannot DEMAND any DOCTOR accept you as a new patient or your baby.
This is not NAZI Germany.
We do not force the baby to accept the Doctor as her Doctor
And we do not force the Doctor to accept the baby as a new patient
But as a business of public accommodation, doctors still have to follow the law. For instance, it would have been illegal for this doctor to have said:
"I thought and prayed about it, and I just can't treat the child of a Jew" or "I thought and prayed about it, and I just can't treat the child of a mixed-race couple."
More of the same untruths you spread. Even after posting truth.
You know we can all read here right?
No treatment was necessary,it was a WELL BABY CHECK UP. Baby is ONLY 6 days old
Never been seen
You need to examine your own value system that after being corrected you keep slandering
about this medical professional.
It is wrong to support bigotry
If it was this Couple who refused to accept the Doctor you have no grounds for bad mouthing them either
This isn't a ONE SIDED discussion which only allows you to repeat the same untruths about a medical professional. Please play fair
I am reading the code as it's written I am unsure of how to read it any other way
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsApt
Yes it says exactly what you've quoted
Now actually READ IT instead of continuously trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
You're not reading the ethical code as written - you're reading a requirement into the code that is not there. Here's the code again:
"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")"
Nowhere does it say that "Physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on that patient's race, gender, sexual orientation ..."
See what I bolded and underlined? No matter how many times you say it is, that's not in the code. It's something you've added. What the code actually says is that doctors cannot refuse care based on racial discrimination, gender discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, or any other invidious discrimination. That's exactly what Dr. Roi did here.
Quote:
Again, "THE PATIENT" This is NOT HER PATIENT.
This baby has no Doctor, it was just born 6 days ago. No doctor has rendered any services or agreed upon accepting this baby after the paperwork was submitted.
Really? That's your reading of the code? The code only applies to patients that the doctor has already agreed to take on as patients and has a signed contract with them?
So it would be completely fine under your reading of the code for a doctor to put up a sign that reads "We Don't Treat Black People In This Clinic"? I mean, if you don't take on black patients, then you can't possibly discriminate against a black patient based on his race, right?
What a ridiculous reading - it renders the code completely meaningless.
And FYI, the family here already had a relationship with Dr. Roi. They'd had several prenatal visits (are prenatal visits just about the mother, or are they about the baby too???), and had set up a future postnatal appointment.
How about in the way I just described it to you? It never says it's unethical to refuse to treat a patient because of the patient's race or religion or sexual orientation. It say it's unethical to refuse treatment of a patient based on race or religion or sexual orientation or on any other discriminatory grounds.
Actually read and quote it. This is changed. And doesn't apply here anyhow.
Quote:
That absolutely covers this situation. Dr. Roi refused to treat a patient based on sexual orientation discrimination.
THIS BABY IS NOT HER PATIENT.
Tell me, why do you KEEP SPREADING THIS LIE? HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU EXPECT ME TO CORRECT YOU?
Your deceit here is getting old. Stop for Goodness Sakes!!
BABY IS 6 DAYS OLD. BABY HAS NO DOCTOR
We all know the process. Show up early and turn in the paperwork. Doc goes over it, you have the intial verbal orientation over the CONTRACT to ensure both parties are in agreement. This is what was happening. When they accept the terms of the contract this Doctor then conducts a WELL BABY CHECK. The Doctor does not "TREAT" the baby UNLESS the baby is ILL or had an ailment which NEEDS TREATMENT
NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED. SERVICES WERE REFERRED OUT
Quote:
Are you ****ing joking? They should have thanked the doctor for her vile discrimination?
You have continuously slandered s here saying this is the Doctors patient and that the baby is ill so needs treatment.
YOu've been corrected OVER AN OVER
STOP. Now you've advanced to something so inappropriate the software here has to accomodate such so it is not readable,luckily.
Actually read and quote it. This is changed. And doesn't apply here anyhow.
THIS BABY IS NOT HER PATIENT.
Tell me, why do you KEEP SPREADING THIS LIE? HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU EXPECT ME TO CORRECT YOU?
Your deceit is getting old. AGAIN STOP
BABY IS 6 DAYS OLD. BABY HAS NO DOCTOR
We all know the process. Show up early and turn in the paperwork. Doc goes over it, you have the intial orientation over the CONTRACT to ensure both parties are in agreement.
NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED. SERVICES WERE REFERRED OUT
You have continuously spread lies here saying this is the Doctors patient and that the baby is ill so needs treatment. STOP. Now you've advanced to something so inappropriate the software here has to accomodate such so it is not readable,luckily.
PLEASE STOP spreading untruths.
Discuss fairly here.
Hahaha. You're playing a character here on this thread, right? You can't possibly be serious?
Let me point one other thing out to you. Did you notice in the code the reference to an Opinion? The code is derived from the Opinion. The Opinion is the longer explanation of the shorter codification. Did you by chance go read "Opinion 9.12 - Patient-Physician Relationship: Respect for Law and Human Rights" upon which this section of the code is based?
If you didn't, here it is (I'll highlight some key words that will help correct your misunderstanding):
"The creation of the patient-physician relationship is contractual in nature. Generally, both the physician and the patient are free to enter into or decline the relationship. A physician may decline to undertake the care of a patient whose medical condition is not within the physician's current competence. However, physicians who offer their services to the public may not decline to accept patients because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other basis that would constitute invidious discrimination. Furthermore, physicians who are obligated under pre-existing contractual arrangements may not decline to accept patients as provided by those arrangements. (I, III, V, VI)"
so I can just cut and paste when the repeated 3 truths are told
1. BABY IS 6 days old. BABY HAD NO DOCTOR. They were in the process of obtaining one.
2. SERVICES WERE NOT RENDERED BUT REFERRED OUT IMMEDIATELY
3. BABY WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS A PATIENT with this particular doctors practice.
BABY IS NOT A PATIENT OF THIS DOCTOR AND NEVER WAS
BABY WAS NOT ILL. BABY WAS JUST BORN AND NEEDED A WELL BABY CHECK SOMEWHAT SOON
NOR WAS BABY ever a patient of this particular doctor.
DOCTOR CANNOT BE FORCED TO ACCEPT A PERSON AS THEIR PATIENT
A PERSON CANNOT BE FORCED TO ACCEPt A CERTAIN DOCTOR as their DOCTOR
This is NOT a third world country.
"The creation of the patient-physician relationship is contractual in nature. Generally, both the physician and the patient are free to enter into or decline the relationship. A physician may decline to undertake the care of a patient whose medical condition is not within the physician's current competence. However, physicians who offer their services to the public may not decline to accept patients because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other basis that would constitute invidious discrimination. Furthermore, physicians who are obligated under pre-existing contractual arrangements may not decline to accept patients as provided by those arrangements. (I, III, V, VI)"
But as a business of public accommodation, doctors still have to follow the law. For instance, it would have been illegal for this doctor to have said:
"I thought and prayed about it, and I just can't treat the child of a Jew" or "I thought and prayed about it, and I just can't treat the child of a mixed-race couple."
The only reason what this doctor did wasn't illegal is because Michigan's anti-discrimination law doesn't cover sexual orientation as a protected class.
(FYI, Michigan's anti-discrimination law is otherwise very broad - it's the only law in the country that covers classes such as "height" and "weight").
This is like the "astroturf" thread. What's the point at this point? Everyone agree's (at the very least nearly everyone) that the doctor isn't very admirable. O.K.? Now what?
You want it a law that she must care for their baby? Is that really what is best for the baby? Isn't that what we should want? You want her punished? So she shuts her mouth and accepts them as clients? Is that what is best for the baby?
Feel free to correct me but isn't that what we all should want? Is this about you or the kid? So you feel slighted. IMO the answer is what is best for the kid. Life isn't always right or fair.
Hahaha. You're playing a character here on this thread, right? You can't possibly be serious?
I didn't come here to spread the same lies over and over.
Nor to troll or pull pranks if that is what you are asking
Quote:
Did you by chance go read "Opinion 9.12 - Patient-Physician Relationship: Respect for Law and Human Rights" upon which this section of the code is based?
If you didn't, here it is (I'll highlight some key words what will help correct your misunderstanding):
"The creation of the patient-physician relationship is contractual in nature. Generally, both the physician and the patient are free to enter into or decline the relationship.
Did you actually read this^^??? Cause i can agree but it is moot if you do not want to comprehend the truth above.
Quote:
A physician may decline to undertake the care of a patient whose medical condition is not within the physician's current competence.
This BABY WAS NOT A PATIENT
DOC REFUSED BABY into her practice
Baby saw a different doctor upon arrival and whether either party accepted the other and came to an
agreement in which baby was accepted into Doctor 2's practice, I don't know
Quote:
However, physicians who offer their services to the public may not decline to accept patients because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other basis that would constitute invidious discrimination. Furthermore, physicians who are obligated under pre-existing contractual arrangements may not decline to accept patients as provided by those arrangements. (I, III, V, VI)"
Baby was not her patient. The word patient is key
You do not become a patient by entering a Doctors office.
You do not become a patient by being examined
You become a patient by agreeing to said paperwork, and Doctor also agrees to said paperwork aka contract.
I just want people to know that most Christians against same sex couple etc are not like this. They would never refuse to treat a child of same sex parents. These kind of people are actually pretty rare. And the good thing is that now she is exposed so people can chose to go to her based on her views.
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.
