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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sbane]

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?

[Sbane]

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?

[Sbane]

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?