RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! Doctor refuses to care for lesbian couple's 6-day-old baby

[afleitch]

A disgrace.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Do some of you really need to tangentially defend this?  Or downplay the fact there is a "doctor" out there that would have a problem treating an infant because its parents are gay?  And can we discuss the fact that the gays are the only ones being targeted right now through this "religious freedom" craze?  Christians say we are all sinners.  By their own logic they shouldn't be doing anything for anyone. Oh, but when it comes to refusing service or the outright disrespect from the GOP by legislating this crap it's all about "freedom".  You think I believe that it's not about your hate and bigotry?  Yea friggin right. 

[IceSpear]

Well now, it seems someone doesn't take their Hippocratic Oath very seriously. Revoke the license.

[Joe Republic]

Don't like the parents' sinfulness?  Take it out on their baby!  👍

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Don't like the parents' sinfulness?  Take it out on their baby!  👍

Getting a doctor who would be more comfortable interacting with the parents to take her place is taking it out on the baby?

[DemPGH]

Well now, it seems someone doesn't take their Hippocratic Oath very seriously. Revoke the license.

Yeah, that's the crux of the issue.

Don't like the parents' sinfulness?  Take it out on their baby!  👍

Getting a doctor who would be more comfortable interacting with the parents to take her place is taking it out on the baby?

Yes. I realize that you'll excuse nearly anything in the name of religious belief, but separating how one feels about the parents from the welfare of a six-day-old baby is at the very heart of the matter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Don't like the parents' sinfulness?  Take it out on their baby!  👍

Getting a doctor who would be more comfortable interacting with the parents to take her place is taking it out on the baby?

Yes. I realize that you'll excuse nearly anything in the name of religious belief, but separating how one feels about the parents from the welfare of a six-day-old baby is at the very heart of the matter.

Actually, religion is irrelevant on this particular point.  The reason why the doctor chose to be stupid doesn't matter.  I'm already on record on this forum as being generally in favor of allowing people to discriminate.  Only when it becomes so pervasive as to make it unreasonably difficult or impossible for people to obtain needed services should government intervene.

Also, to think that how one feels about the parents of a baby is irrelevant to how one deals with that baby assumes that doctors are machines rather than people.

[anvi]

As the parents in the story point out, the patient was the infant.  I fail to see how giving an infant a wellness exam should offend a physician's moral conscience.  

Yes, the treatment of infants necessarily includes council to their caregivers.  But council to the caregivers of an infant about her health can't reasonably be construed as tantamount to approving of the parents' lifestyle.  If that were justifiable grounds for the denial of medical care, the slope would get pretty slippery pretty quickly.

Nice to know the physician reached the conclusion through prayer though.  Obviously, the physician knows God's will quite well  The Gospels are, after all, filled with stories about how Jesus consistently refused to heal or help people he believed to be sinners.  He refused to speak to them face to face, he refused to develop relationships with them or their children.  He made no sacrifices of his own glory on their behalf.  None of that.

[MaxQue]

Don't like the parents' sinfulness?  Take it out on their baby!  👍

Getting a doctor who would be more comfortable interacting with the parents to take her place is taking it out on the baby?

Yes. I realize that you'll excuse nearly anything in the name of religious belief, but separating how one feels about the parents from the welfare of a six-day-old baby is at the very heart of the matter.

Actually, religion is irrelevant on this particular point.  The reason why the doctor chose to be stupid doesn't matter.  I'm already on record on this forum as being generally in favor of allowing people to discriminate.  Only when it becomes so pervasive as to make it unreasonably difficult or impossible for people to obtain needed services should government intervene.

Also, to think that how one feels about the parents of a baby is irrelevant to how one deals with that baby assumes that doctors are machines rather than people.

If you're are unable to go over your bigotry when doing your doctor job, you violate Hippocrates Oath. So, yeah, that person has no business being a doctor. Too bad for all the money she invested, but, she had to do a choice between her job nd her bigotry and she chose her bigotry. I was her choice.

[MaxQue]

Don't like the parents' sinfulness?  Take it out on their baby!  👍

Getting a doctor who would be more comfortable interacting with the parents to take her place is taking it out on the baby?

She a member of AAP and AAP has a policy about

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I even bolded the relevent parts to you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As the parents in the story point out, the patient was the infant.  I fail to see how giving an infant a wellness exam should offend a physician's moral conscience.

This visit was intended as the start of an ongoing professional relationship, and part of pediatric practice should be counseling the parents on changes they should make to their lifestyle for the benefit of the baby.  If the doctor's beliefs would cause her to rebuke the parents' sexual orientation, that certainly would make such a professional relationship difficult to say the least.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should medical services be treated differently than any other professional service?  Granted, it is more often provided on an emergency basis that most other services, but this wasn't an emergency situation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He'd also tell them to sin no more (John 8:11), and he counseled his disciples to separate themselves from those who refused to heed their words. (Matthew 10:14, Luke 9:5; Acts 13:51) But you are right that if Jesus thought their orientation to be a sin, he would have addressed the issue directly rather than refuse to meet with them before shaking the dust from his sandals if they continued in their sinful ways.  Also, to be consistent, that doctor ought to be sending away all who refuse to repent their ways, and not just those who engage in one thing she perceives to be a sin.

Don't like the parents' sinfulness?  Take it out on their baby!  👍

Getting a doctor who would be more comfortable interacting with the parents to take her place is taking it out on the baby?

She a member of AAP and AAP has a policy about

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I even bolded the relevent parts to you.

And I have no problem with the AAP choosing to sanction the doctor for this.  After all, the AAP is not the government.

[MaxQue]

Don't like the parents' sinfulness?  Take it out on their baby!  👍

Getting a doctor who would be more comfortable interacting with the parents to take her place is taking it out on the baby?

She a member of AAP and AAP has a policy about

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I even bolded the relevent parts to you.

And I have no problem with the AAP choosing to sanction the doctor for this.  After all, the AAP is not the government.

Well, for the record, her behaviour is illegal in 22 states, according to various news reports.

[Deus Naturae]

Do some of you really need to tangentially defend this? 

Who has done this?

[MaxQue]

Do some of you really need to tangentially defend this? 

Who has done this?

Ernest.

I'm already on record on this forum as being generally in favor of allowing people to discriminate.  Only when it becomes so pervasive as to make it unreasonably difficult or impossible for people to obtain needed services should government intervene.

[anvi]

Good points, Ernest.  I'm glad you reminded me of all those texts where Jesus advised his disciples to stay away from those who didn't heed him.  I thought the direct advice Jeuss gave to people to sin no more was delivered after he healed them, but the point you make stands.  I appreciate the sound reminders of some of the reasons I abandoned Christianity and why I find libertarianism repugnant.  Thanks.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well now, it seems someone doesn't take their Hippocratic Oath very seriously. Revoke the license.

which part of the Hippocratic Oath are you looking at?

[MaxQue]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[anvi]

I guess direct legal sanctions can't be leveled for violating the Hippocratic Oath.  The original one, addressed to Apollo and the gang, is interesting; it says, among other things, that physicians are to act in a godly manner, are not to administer abortions, and should give financial assistance to their teachers should they be in need.  I'm glad we've made the modern versions a little different.

Anyway, though I'm aware the law often gives physicians some leeway to discriminate against patients, I don't agree with it.  I don't think professions should be different; I don't think the people who sell me toothpaste or repair the foundation in my house should have the legal right to refuse such services to me if they were homophobic and I were gay.  A physician's job is to attend to patients' physical health; if the perpetrator of an armed assault is shot by police and wheeled into the emergency room, I think physicians should be professionally obligated to treat their wounds despite whatever entirely reasonable objections they would have to the crimes of the wounded.  I think the same rule also applies to an adulterer who goes to the clinic for a checkup.  Unless it's part of the physician's professional duties to be a moral judge of the sexual preferences of their patients, then I don't think the doctor should be afforded the right to discriminate on these "moral" grounds.  If they can't be "professional" enough to sort out their occupational duties from their religious beliefs, then they should find a profession that doesn't require them to offend their own conscience, instead of being allowed to refuse me services on the basis of professionally irrelevant considerations.  On top of it all, this person refused to treat an infant because they didn't like what their parents were doing in the bedroom--beyond being "unprofessional," I think that's just colossally lame.

I've learned my lesson though.  I'm not Christian, so I'm going to desist from making moral objections on purported Christian grounds.  It's inadvisable and dishonest, so my bad.  I'll stick to my own standards.  Even when I was a believer, I probably was a rather poor one anyway.  Contrary to what was laid down in the Scriptures, as shown above, I always thought it was my job to serve people and God's job to judge them.  And I didn't think God liked it much when I tried to usurp his prerogatives.  Even then, had I thought, if I became a physician, that I was only obligated to treat people who lived like I did, wow, that would have struck me as profoundly strange.  But, given everything else that happened, I'm glad I left the "faith" behind; I wasn't suited for it at all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Good points, Ernest.  I'm glad you reminded me of all those texts where Jesus advised his disciples to stay away from those who didn't heed him.  I thought the direct advice Jesus gave to people to sin no more was delivered after he healed them, but the point you make stands.  I appreciate the sound reminders of some of the reasons I abandoned Christianity and why I find libertarianism repugnant.  Thanks.

You are correct that he told people to sin no more after he had interacted with them.  However, in all the examples I can think of, healing by Jesus in the Gospels is always associated with already existing faith in Jesus as having the ability to heal.

[anvi]

Yeah.  So, for Jesus, healing is only for the faithful, and for those that "sin no more" if treated.  And so should it be for physicians who believe in him.  Got it.

[morgieb]

ITT: muh liberty

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah.  So, for Jesus, healing is only for the faithful, and for those that "sin no more" if treated.  And so should it be for physicians who believe in him.  Got it.

Not really, since she's a physician and not an apostle.  I'd say the example of the Good Samaritan should have priority in determining who she helps.  And yet unlike those who failed to help in that parable, she did make certain that the baby did receive the healthcare it needed.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Seriously? I mean, the natural extension of this is to ask what if there was no doctor available. So she would only have begrudgingly treated a child? At best?

If you're a doctor you have a responsibility that overrides (breathe Libertarians) your "rights". You don't want to risk interacting with people about whom you have a religious objections? F*** off somewhere else then.

She's a truly horrible person and no it's not because she thinks differently to me, or whatever weak an defenceless straw men you wish throw, it's because it was a basic dereliction of her responsibilities as an emergency physician - and whatever she believes about the parents, she had no right (not a specific constitutional right, so I guess I lose huh?  But a moral right) to refuse and pass on treatment on their baby.

For those who are defending her actions "hey, but she found a doctor to treat the baby" (or you know, she could have cut the crap and just done it herself) - I assume you'll be cool when you take your newborn to the hospital (btw, when infants are at their MOST vulnerable) and the Doctor goes "cha, you no wha? Uh uh... I don't like who you are" - I'll find someone else to care for your child .... 'cause her right to judge is more important that your child's immediate well-being?

[Sbane]

I know this is going to sound very libertarian of me, but it's not as if this doctor refused to provide emergency care.  She even made arrangements so that the baby would still be seen by a doctor at the appointed time.  The idea that people who choose to provide services should have no ability to decide who to serve is a rather illiberal one. It was a bigoted and stupid decision on her part, but unless it rises to the point of preventing people from having any access to a needed service, I don't think government should be interfering in this particular form of idiocy.

Someone who has chosen to go into a profession, not forced into one, should not have the choice of picking and choosing who they will serve, especially due to intrinsic characteristics of the individual such as race, gender and sexual orientation. And if the doctor's excuse is that she doesn't approve of their "lifestyle", her license should be taken away because obviously this individual is not open to change when new information is presented. That is the sort of practitioner who will ignore the data that is coming out today and keep practicing like they did when they got out of med school.

[Sbane]

And most importantly of all, no one has a right to be a doctor. If you want to be a doctor you need to treat all your patients fairly and equally. Those are the rules. If you are not capable of doing that, find another job. It is highly disturbing that some in this thread would be fine with these sorts of people being doctors.