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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:58:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! Doctor refuses to care for lesbian couple's 6-day-old baby
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! Doctor refuses to care for lesbian couple's 6-day-old baby  (Read 7299 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 20, 2015, 09:33:07 AM »
« edited: February 20, 2015, 09:34:38 AM by Gravis Marketing »

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?

No offense, but do people brushing this off because an alternative happened to be available recognize that this is exactly the logical underpinning behind "separate but equal"?

Separate never translates into equal, and greenlighting one doctor to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (or race, or religion) because she located an alternative leads to many other doctors (or hotels, or restaurants, or employers...) being able to discriminate and turn away the patient or customer without an alternative. Because seeing that there is a facility willing to serve the gays is not their problem.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 20, 2015, 09:36:23 AM »

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.  

It's a logical extension of the argument that selling flowers to a couple who may use those flowers in a same-sex wedding is forcing heresy upon the seller.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 20, 2015, 10:16:25 AM »
« Edited: February 20, 2015, 10:19:33 AM by Sbane »

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. 

It's a logical extension of the argument that selling flowers to a couple who may use those flowers in a same-sex wedding is forcing heresy upon the seller.

No one is forcing you to sell flowers or become a doctor. However, if you want to engage in providing these services, you must provide it to the entire population without discrimination, especially in regards to intrinsic characteristics. This may not be as big of a deal when it comes to selling flowers, but it absolutely is when it comes to the provision of health care. Those who are defending this doctor are being extremely irresponsible.

Theoretical libertarian ramblings about FREEDOM are cute, but they are not applicable in the real world, especially in the healthcare setting.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 20, 2015, 11:02:24 AM »

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.

I can see the slippery slope argument about if enough people do this than a gay couple will have trouble finding an essential and somewhat scarce service like a doctor  (I don't believe an event florist is in the same category) but this argument strikes me as somewhat ominous in its implications.
What new information about this is so incontrovertible it should lead to someone's license to practice being taken away?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2015, 11:16:21 AM »

I can see the slippery slope argument about if enough people do this than a gay couple will have trouble finding an essential and somewhat scarce service like a doctor  (I don't believe an event florist is in the same category) but this argument strikes me as somewhat ominous in its implications.
What new information about this is so incontrovertible it should lead to someone's license to practice being taken away?

Who is going to judge when "separate but equal" is working or when the alternatives aren't as good because the alternative practitioner has a worse record, the customer has to drive an extra 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 2 hours to reach that alternative, the alternative charges more (and knows he can because the gay customer doesn't have a choice), or the alternative doesn't provide as good service?

You don't intend this, but your argument is the same one that led to the creation of ghettoes in northern cities. African Americans paid more than white people for worse housing because whites preserved their right to not sell their homes to blacks. We have the opportunity to learn from history and not assume that in this best of all possible worlds, all will be well.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2015, 11:51:14 AM »

In this case, it kind of seems like a win-win: the doctor didn't have to violate their conscience, the baby got cared for, and the parents got to interact with a doctor who would be much friendlier and helpful than before. People saying "what if there were no doctor available" are missing the point. There was one, and we have no idea what would have happened in that hypothetical.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2015, 12:03:56 PM »

In this case, it kind of seems like a win-win: the doctor didn't have to violate their conscience, the baby got cared for, and the parents got to interact with a doctor who would be much friendlier and helpful than before. People saying "what if there were no doctor available" are missing the point. There was one, and we have no idea what would have happened in that hypothetical.

Honestly if we only looked at this case, yes it wasn't a big problem. But what about the next time someone do something like this and there aren't access to another doctor?
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 20, 2015, 01:42:25 PM »

In this case, it kind of seems like a win-win: the doctor didn't have to violate their conscience, the baby got cared for, and the parents got to interact with a doctor who would be much friendlier and helpful than before. People saying "what if there were no doctor available" are missing the point. There was one, and we have no idea what would have happened in that hypothetical.

Honestly if we only looked at this case, yes it wasn't a big problem. But what about the next time someone do something like this and there aren't access to another doctor?

If a doctor's actions (or intentional inactions) directly and intentionally harm their patient, then they should be punished accordingly.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 20, 2015, 01:49:37 PM »

In this case, it kind of seems like a win-win: the doctor didn't have to violate their conscience, the baby got cared for, and the parents got to interact with a doctor who would be much friendlier and helpful than before. People saying "what if there were no doctor available" are missing the point. There was one, and we have no idea what would have happened in that hypothetical.

I push back on the idea that performing your job as you would for anyone else—in this case, caring for a baby—"violates their conscience." That phrase should have some actual meaning. People who abuse it because they want to show their disapproval or disgust for people different from them by refusing to provide services or goods they would otherwise sell happily, are doing people who live their faith and experience real discrimination or conflicts a disfavor.

Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,832


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: February 20, 2015, 02:50:23 PM »

In this case, it kind of seems like a win-win: the doctor didn't have to violate their conscience, the baby got cared for, and the parents got to interact with a doctor who would be much friendlier and helpful than before. People saying "what if there were no doctor available" are missing the point. There was one, and we have no idea what would have happened in that hypothetical.

I push back on the idea that performing your job as you would for anyone else—in this case, caring for a baby—"violates their conscience." That phrase should have some actual meaning. People who abuse it because they want to show their disapproval or disgust for people different from them by refusing to provide services or goods they would otherwise sell happily, are doing people who live their faith and experience real discrimination or conflicts a disfavor.



What annoys me about these appeals to 'conscience' is that usually they only ever seems to apply to religious conscience and secondly, it makes an assumption that a persons 'conscience' actually deserves any special protection. I do genuinely believe that some people deep down personally feel that their 'conscience' prohibits racial mixing or equality, but we don't allow people to defer to that without repercussion because it's cleary f-u-cking stupid
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: February 20, 2015, 05:03:15 PM »

In this case, it kind of seems like a win-win: the doctor didn't have to violate their conscience, the baby got cared for, and the parents got to interact with a doctor who would be much friendlier and helpful than before. People saying "what if there were no doctor available" are missing the point. There was one, and we have no idea what would have happened in that hypothetical.

I push back on the idea that performing your job as you would for anyone else—in this case, caring for a baby—"violates their conscience." That phrase should have some actual meaning. People who abuse it because they want to show their disapproval or disgust for people different from them by refusing to provide services or goods they would otherwise sell happily, are doing people who live their faith and experience real discrimination or conflicts a disfavor.



What annoys me about these appeals to 'conscience' is that usually they only ever seems to apply to religious conscience and secondly, it makes an assumption that a persons 'conscience' actually deserves any special protection. I do genuinely believe that some people deep down personally feel that their 'conscience' prohibits racial mixing or equality, but we don't allow people to defer to that without repercussion because it's cleary f-u-cking stupid

Thank you! and the issue about whether or not there was another doctor is not tangential or unimportant. It's kind of fundamental.

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: February 20, 2015, 06:47:40 PM »
« Edited: February 20, 2015, 06:50:23 PM by True Federalist »

I have a question for those of you who feel that personal beliefs should never be a reason to deny the provision of a good or service to some customers.  Does that also apply to those that refuse to sell certain drugs to state prisons?  Or do you believe that when you approve of the denial of a good or service that it is okay, but if you object then it must be wrong?

My position is reasonably consistent.  Ideally, both consumers and producers should have the ability to freely choose to engage or not engage in transactions.  While at times that ideal of free association must be breached, that should only be done when it leads to the impingement of some other basic right.  So while I think that both in this case of this doctor and in the case I've brought up here, it fairly idiotic for them to refuse service, I support their right to do so.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: February 20, 2015, 06:48:58 PM »

It's ridiculous.  I don't eat animals, but in my capacity at work I prepare and sell meat products.  If I just suddenly refused to keep doing that, even always finding another person to do it, I would get fired.  For once, I'd deserve it.  It is incumbent upon me to go and find a job where I would no longer have to do that.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: February 20, 2015, 06:52:15 PM »

It's ridiculous.  I don't eat animals, but in my capacity at work I prepare and sell meat products.  If I just suddenly refused to keep doing that, even always finding another person to do it, I would get fired.  For once, I'd deserve it.  It is incumbent upon me to go and find a job where I would no longer have to do that.

And if that doctor's other clients decide to fire her, that's perfectly fine.  I fully support the use of private boycotts and sanctions where people feel it is appropriate.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: February 20, 2015, 06:53:13 PM »
« Edited: February 20, 2015, 06:55:20 PM by 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.

What new information about this is so incontrovertible it should lead to someone's license to practice being taken away?

I wouldn't want that sort of person to be my doctor is what I mean.

As for taking the doctor's license away, practically speaking she should be told not to do it again and be given a second chance. She cannot repeat this sort of behavior. If she cannot be a professional and serve people who she may have a difference with, maybe she shouldn't be in that profession.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: February 20, 2015, 07:36:58 PM »
« Edited: February 20, 2015, 07:39:05 PM by Gravis Marketing »

It's ridiculous.  I don't eat animals, but in my capacity at work I prepare and sell meat products.  If I just suddenly refused to keep doing that, even always finding another person to do it, I would get fired.  For once, I'd deserve it.  It is incumbent upon me to go and find a job where I would no longer have to do that.

And if that doctor's other clients decide to fire her, that's perfectly fine.  I fully support the use of private boycotts and sanctions where people feel it is appropriate.

Yes, because that was so incredibly successful in the defeat of Jim Crow and housing segregation outside of the Montgomery buses.

Simple math says you can deny service to 5%, 10%, 15% of the population with the support or non-interference of the majority and do just fine. Sucks to be in that minority, but it isn't usually white libertarian men who face total inability to buy a good or service, so we'll keep having these discussions until the end of time
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: February 20, 2015, 10:16:01 PM »

It's ridiculous.  I don't eat animals, but in my capacity at work I prepare and sell meat products.  If I just suddenly refused to keep doing that, even always finding another person to do it, I would get fired.  For once, I'd deserve it.  It is incumbent upon me to go and find a job where I would no longer have to do that.

And if that doctor's other clients decide to fire her, that's perfectly fine.  I fully support the use of private boycotts and sanctions where people feel it is appropriate.

Yes, because that was so incredibly successful in the defeat of Jim Crow and housing segregation outside of the Montgomery buses.

Simple math says you can deny service to 5%, 10%, 15% of the population with the support or non-interference of the majority and do just fine. Sucks to be in that minority, but it isn't usually white libertarian men who face total inability to buy a good or service, so we'll keep having these discussions until the end of time

If the couple were denied access to medical service for their child, you'd be raising a valid point, as I've already agreed earlier.  But that isn't what happened.  They weren't even delayed in having their child looked at that day.  Granted, they were upset, angry, and dismayed.  I would be too in their shoes.  But as the Declaration of Independence points out, happiness isn't a right, only the pursuit of happiness.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: February 21, 2015, 04:02:49 AM »

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.

I can't think of any time Jesus refused to heal someone except for the many times he withdrew from the crowds out of tiredness or the need to be alone.  Jesus sometimes said "Your faith has made you well" but the act of seeking out Jesus for healing was itself an expression of faith.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: February 21, 2015, 04:26:22 AM »
« Edited: February 21, 2015, 04:28:14 AM by shua »

I can see the slippery slope argument about if enough people do this than a gay couple will have trouble finding an essential and somewhat scarce service like a doctor  (I don't believe an event florist is in the same category) but this argument strikes me as somewhat ominous in its implications.
What new information about this is so incontrovertible it should lead to someone's license to practice being taken away?

Who is going to judge when "separate but equal" is working or when the alternatives aren't as good because the alternative practitioner has a worse record, the customer has to drive an extra 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 2 hours to reach that alternative, the alternative charges more (and knows he can because the gay customer doesn't have a choice), or the alternative doesn't provide as good service?

You don't intend this, but your argument is the same one that led to the creation of ghettoes in northern cities. African Americans paid more than white people for worse housing because whites preserved their right to not sell their homes to blacks. We have the opportunity to learn from history and not assume that in this best of all possible worlds, all will be well.

We also live in a time when we can investigate and aggregate data quickly to determine whether people are having a hard time finding decent services and resources. But I don't want to live in a country where we could have someone call up every Hasidic plumber in Brooklyn in order to find someone who won't serve a Goy just so they can win some lawsuit and stir up resentment. And the times lend themselves to that as well. Not every problem should have a remedy in punitive law. It's not a healthy way for a society to get on. There is value in, where possible, allowing people to live and work in the manner of their choosing, and in attempting to without force persuade rather than coercively "rehabilitate."
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: February 21, 2015, 07:02:51 AM »

It's ridiculous.  I don't eat animals, but in my capacity at work I prepare and sell meat products.  If I just suddenly refused to keep doing that, even always finding another person to do it, I would get fired.  For once, I'd deserve it.  It is incumbent upon me to go and find a job where I would no longer have to do that.

And if that doctor's other clients decide to fire her, that's perfectly fine.  I fully support the use of private boycotts and sanctions where people feel it is appropriate.

Yes, because that was so incredibly successful in the defeat of Jim Crow and housing segregation outside of the Montgomery buses.

Simple math says you can deny service to 5%, 10%, 15% of the population with the support or non-interference of the majority and do just fine. Sucks to be in that minority, but it isn't usually white libertarian men who face total inability to buy a good or service, so we'll keep having these discussions until the end of time

If the couple were denied access to medical service for their child, you'd be raising a valid point, as I've already agreed earlier.  But that isn't what happened.  They weren't even delayed in having their child looked at that day.  Granted, they were upset, angry, and dismayed.  I would be too in their shoes.  But as the Declaration of Independence points out, happiness isn't a right, only the pursuit of happiness.

Neither is there a right to be a doctor. Society can make rules that prohibit this sort of behavior. A doctor's license is a privilege, not a right. Do you disagree?
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: February 21, 2015, 07:41:24 AM »

It's ridiculous.  I don't eat animals, but in my capacity at work I prepare and sell meat products.  If I just suddenly refused to keep doing that, even always finding another person to do it, I would get fired.  For once, I'd deserve it.  It is incumbent upon me to go and find a job where I would no longer have to do that.

And if that doctor's other clients decide to fire her, that's perfectly fine.  I fully support the use of private boycotts and sanctions where people feel it is appropriate.

Yes, because that was so incredibly successful in the defeat of Jim Crow and housing segregation outside of the Montgomery buses.

Simple math says you can deny service to 5%, 10%, 15% of the population with the support or non-interference of the majority and do just fine. Sucks to be in that minority, but it isn't usually white libertarian men who face total inability to buy a good or service, so we'll keep having these discussions until the end of time

If the couple were denied access to medical service for their child, you'd be raising a valid point, as I've already agreed earlier.  But that isn't what happened.  They weren't even delayed in having their child looked at that day.  Granted, they were upset, angry, and dismayed.  I would be too in their shoes.  But as the Declaration of Independence points out, happiness isn't a right, only the pursuit of happiness.

Neither is there a right to be a doctor. Society can make rules that prohibit this sort of behavior. A doctor's license is a privilege, not a right. Do you disagree?

But then we're back to society forcing moral norms on a minority. Already we have forum posters arguing that doctors who won't perform abortions should lose their license, effectively barring a lot of Catholics and Evangelicals from the profession. In Canada, many law societies are refusing to recognize law degrees from faith oriented schools because of their stances on same sex marriage. Instead of the 1920's with "No Jews Allowed" such thinking gives the 2020's with "No Fundies Allowed".

While I find the doctor's action to be distasteful and poor theology, the couple found a doctor who will better serve them and the doctor doesn't have to violate their conscience. As shua noted this is just part of living in a pluralistic society, and we don't need to fix every injustice with punitive law.

Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: February 21, 2015, 07:45:49 AM »

But then we're back to society forcing moral norms on a minority. Already we have forum posters arguing that doctors who won't perform abortions should lose their license, effectively barring a lot of Catholics and Evangelicals from the profession. In Canada, many law societies are refusing to recognize law degrees from faith oriented schools because of their stances on same sex marriage. Instead of the 1920's with "No Jews Allowed" such thinking gives the 2020's with "No Fundies Allowed".

No one should be banned from a profession due to their beliefs. However, if these beliefs come to affect the way a person performs their professional duties, they must choose one of the other. They have no right for special accommodation and should not be held to a different standard as anybody else.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: February 21, 2015, 07:56:17 AM »

It's ridiculous.  I don't eat animals, but in my capacity at work I prepare and sell meat products.  If I just suddenly refused to keep doing that, even always finding another person to do it, I would get fired.  For once, I'd deserve it.  It is incumbent upon me to go and find a job where I would no longer have to do that.

And if that doctor's other clients decide to fire her, that's perfectly fine.  I fully support the use of private boycotts and sanctions where people feel it is appropriate.

Yes, because that was so incredibly successful in the defeat of Jim Crow and housing segregation outside of the Montgomery buses.

Simple math says you can deny service to 5%, 10%, 15% of the population with the support or non-interference of the majority and do just fine. Sucks to be in that minority, but it isn't usually white libertarian men who face total inability to buy a good or service, so we'll keep having these discussions until the end of time

If the couple were denied access to medical service for their child, you'd be raising a valid point, as I've already agreed earlier.  But that isn't what happened.  They weren't even delayed in having their child looked at that day.  Granted, they were upset, angry, and dismayed.  I would be too in their shoes.  But as the Declaration of Independence points out, happiness isn't a right, only the pursuit of happiness.

Neither is there a right to be a doctor. Society can make rules that prohibit this sort of behavior. A doctor's license is a privilege, not a right. Do you disagree?

But then we're back to society forcing moral norms on a minority. Already we have forum posters arguing that doctors who won't perform abortions should lose their license, effectively barring a lot of Catholics and Evangelicals from the profession. In Canada, many law societies are refusing to recognize law degrees from faith oriented schools because of their stances on same sex marriage. Instead of the 1920's with "No Jews Allowed" such thinking gives the 2020's with "No Fundies Allowed".

While I find the doctor's action to be distasteful and poor theology, the couple found a doctor who will better serve them and the doctor doesn't have to violate their conscience. As shua noted this is just part of living in a pluralistic society, and we don't need to fix every injustice with punitive law.



That is a slippery slope argument you are making here. Performing abortions vs caring for a baby are two different issues and should be argued separately.

What action would the doctor have to take here which would violate their conscience? All she had to do was treat that baby like any other baby and she would have done her job properly. How does that in any way affect her faith?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: February 21, 2015, 09:39:21 AM »

What action would the doctor have to take here which would violate their conscience? All she had to do was treat that baby like any other baby and she would have done her job properly. How does that in any way affect her faith?
Unlike say a pharmacist, or even a anesthesiologist, a primary care physician, if they are going to be good at their job, ought to establish some degree of rapport with their patients and those who their parents or guardians.  The doctor in this case felt she wouldn't be, and that another doctor would be more likely to.  Is this case that dissimilar to doctors who refuse to see some patients because they don't accept some medical advice, such as vaccinations?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: February 21, 2015, 09:45:54 AM »

What action would the doctor have to take here which would violate their conscience? All she had to do was treat that baby like any other baby and she would have done her job properly. How does that in any way affect her faith?
Unlike say a pharmacist, or even a anesthesiologist, a primary care physician, if they are going to be good at their job, ought to establish some degree of rapport with their patients and those who their parents or guardians.  The doctor in this case felt she wouldn't be, and that another doctor would be more likely to.  Is this case that dissimilar to doctors who refuse to see some patients because they don't accept some medical advice, such as vaccinations?

So should doctors who are uncomfortable around black people be allowed to not see them? Or should they act like professionals and do their job?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 13 queries.