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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Disgusting. Hopefully there is some way to sanction this behavior.

Yes, how dare people think differently than you!  Obviously beliefs must be criminalized!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Imagine the uproar had the child been discriminated against because it was Black... or a ginger.

Black yes, but who cares about the damn gingers? More seriously, I hope there is an uproar and that the doctor loses business as a result.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Disgusting. Hopefully there is some way to sanction this behavior.

Yes, how dare people think differently than you!  Obviously beliefs must be criminalized!

Those are regulated professions, and, usually, the internal rules forbid them to discriminate patients.

If those beliefs had led to the action of the baby not getting needed care, I'd agree with you that official sanction would be warranted.  But that isn't what happened.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I already touched upon this in the other reply I did this morning in this thread, so this will be similar.  The doctor here had been recommended to the couple, which suggests that she is one who seeks to establish a rapport beyond merely the technical aspects of medicine.  While that is a good thing, it does mean that she won't be able to establish a rapport with everyone.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I already touched upon this in the other reply I did this morning in this thread, so this will be similar.  The doctor here had been recommended to the couple, which suggests that she is one who seeks to establish a rapport beyond merely the technical aspects of medicine.  While that is a good thing, it does mean that she won't be able to establish a rapport with everyone.

But what if there were more doctors who espoused this kind of behavior when dealing with LGBT patients? That means this patients would be forced to choose their doctor among a much smaller pool of physicians, and thus be at a significant disadvantage compared to other patients. If you think everyone should have access to the same quality of health care, you can't have doctors pick and choose their patients.

I acknowledge the potential problem.  But suppose the situation were reversed?  Suppose the doctor were a lesbian and the parents were bigoted fundamentalists who would each time they took their child in would wear anti-LGBT tee-shirts?  Would you force the doctor in this situation to treat their child or you would you allow that doctor to tell them to find a more compatible one?

There's also the myth that it is possible to ensure everyone has the same quality of service.  It's a nice idea, but that's only possible in a utopia, or if all restaurants are Taco Bells.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The law already would would it not? As being LGBT is not a protected class but religion is.

You have this sort of 'meh' reaction on the forum every time issues like this come up when it comes to LGBT people and their families. I know your 'couch libertarianism' means that certain equality laws don't sit well with you but given that race, colour, national origin, age (mostly), pregnancy, citizenship, family status, disability status, veteran status are all protected classes, don't you consider that perhaps sexuality should be? I mean, can you be so gracious? Because you always seem to think we should just try the next door down every time it's slammed on our faces.

I don't know why you think I feel that sexual orientation should be treated differently than those other statuses.  I've made it clear that my position with respect to civil rights legislation applies to all protected classes.  I've also made it quite clear in the past that I think that where there are demonstrable pervasive problems, those sorts of laws should be passed, but that where there are only occasional problems they shouldn't and that once the problem declines to the point where it is not longer pervasive. consideration should be given to repeal.

Now if you could point to cases involving denial of emergency care, or a study showing an inability to find doctors who will treat certain classes of patients, then I could see the need.  However, occasional anecdotes such as this incident are insufficient evidence that a strong enough problem exists to warrant legislation with respect to the medical profession.  Indeed, if I were to draw a conclusion from this incident, it would be that the surprise of the parents involved would seem to indicate that such refusal be rare enough to not warrant the involvement of government.  But I'd want much stronger evidence than a single incident to make any changes - enactment or repeal - with respect to such laws with respect to any class.