|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Two Moms, No Pediatrician: Hippocratic Oaf?
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
News from my own rather unevolved state: Pediatrician Refuses to Accept Lesbian Couple's Child as Patient
This discrimination isn't illegal in Michigan, and I believe that the American Medical Association has stated, more or less, that a doctor has the right to decline patients based on the doctor's religious beliefs.
But how does this jibe with the Hippocratic Oath? What if this were an emergent situation instead of a matter of choosing a family pediatrician -- could this doctor still claim that her deeply held religious beliefs made it impossible for her to provide care? And -- if doctors are going to wear their religious prejudices on the sleeves of their white coats, like this one, should they become fair game for censure, if not by the government or their own professional associations, by the court of public opinion?
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
"Unevolved" seems to be an appropriate comment.
I know what the "court of public opinion"* would say if that was tried on this side of the border, but things may be different down your way.
*let alone the actual courts, given our present Constitution and the terms of our Medicare. If the doc doesn't make it possible for the child to get appropriate care, she would be liable for civil prosecution, let alone the Constitutional guarantees about discrimination.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I checked and it would seem that the AMA strongly recommends against this kind of action. However, it doesn't have legal status to enforce anything.
I am so glad I live in NZ - that doc would be in serious trouble here. Specially after handwriting a letter with her reasons.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
But how does this jibe with the Hippocratic Oath?
It does not.
BTW, your link did not work for me.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
But how does this jibe with the Hippocratic Oath?
It does not.
BTW, your link did not work for me.
It has an extra "http" at the front of it.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
How awful for that family. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
This is like the news story, several years ago, about a kid with two same-sex parents being turned away from a Christian school. I couldn't understand why, if they were disgusted by the parents, they didn't *leap* to admit the child, in order to give the child better influences.
With this case, the doctor could've thought to herself, "that baby's going to need a good Christian--like me--in her life; better keep her in my practice".
Reading her letter of apology, I'm not sure whether she's upset by what she did, or by the resulting fuss, or is covering her behind.
I think what she did was absolutely wrong, in terms the devastating effect on that family. If she's that uncomfortable with lesbians and can't cope (bad past experience, strict indoctrination), then she either should have apologetically told them right away, or put something in her listings. ("Personal activities: biking, baking, and teaching Sunday school at my beloved Evangelical church." )
Looking at this from another angle: is it ever appropriate for doctors to have a choice of patients? (Other than for insurance reasons, specialty, etc.) Patients can often choose their doctor--gender, language, background, religion (if they can find that out).
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
But how does this jibe with the Hippocratic Oath? What if this were an emergent situation instead of a matter of choosing a family pediatrician -- could this doctor still claim that her deeply held religious beliefs made it impossible for her to provide care?
We have recently discussed family doctors who have refused to have as patients children of parents who decline vaccination. Family doctors typically don't see emergencies - emergencies go to the ER. If, however, a doctor encountered an unvaccinated child with a medical emergency, I'm pretty sure he'd provide appropriate care rather than checking vaccination details . Similarly, I'd expect a doctor who disapproved of gay couples to still provide treatment to the child of a gay couple in an emergency.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I know it's a bit of a tangent, but I find the writing a contra-indication as to the doctor's suitability as a doctor - I've seen much, much better from eight-year-olds. (I suppose this is what we can expect from a generation who have done all their school work on keyboards.)
And the content is immature, as well - to assure the couple that she has approached the matter through prayer (which implies that her god approves of her action), and then sign off with "Blessings". They aren't up to her standards for care, but she can offer them blessings? (Are the blessings intended to change their lifestyle?)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
This is like the news story, several years ago, about a kid with two same-sex parents being turned away from a Christian school. I couldn't understand why, if they were disgusted by the parents, they didn't *leap* to admit the child, in order to give the child better influences.
With this case, the doctor could've thought to herself, "that baby's going to need a good Christian--like me--in her life; better keep her in my practice".
It could be argued that it would be better for the child to be educated and treated by professionals who supported their family's values rather than undermining them. Less confusing, I would have thought.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've been reading the comments below the article. Someone claiming the name "William Wilberforce" has posted quote:
No one should be forced to promote a lifestyle they disagree with. The courts are wrong and those promoting this lifestyle will answer to God.
The arrogance to assume that name to back those ideas.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How is performing a well-child checkup, maybe dispensing some antibiotics once in a while, promoting a lifestyle? The category error is immense and lies behind a great part of the right's attack on LGBTXYZ people.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And the content is immature, as well - to assure the couple that she has approached the matter through prayer (which implies that her god approves of her action), and then sign off with "Blessings".
Without entering into the debate over this particular case, may I just say that "having prayed about it" is often used as an unintentional hammer by Evangelicals to claim legitimacy for their decisions. I've heard it used in a whole variety of contexts, the general premise implying, "I've prayed, God has directed me, I have a settled mind, I know I've made the correct decision".
"Blessings", on the other hand, has IMO little meaning except as a sort of code identifying the specific Christian outlook of the letter-writer. It's not intended to be condescending; however to a fellow-Christian it says, "Yes, I'm one of your lot" while to a non-Christian it tends to say, "I hold different life-values to you". In the latter case it is definitely the wrong salutation to use!
[ 20. February 2015, 13:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It could be argued that it would be better for the child to be educated and treated by professionals who supported their family's values rather than undermining them. Less confusing, I would have thought.
I don't think a Doctor of Osteopathy has to check on the "values" of her patients in order to give a professional service and I certainly don't think she has to check on the "values" of the patient's parents for that purpose.
Presumably Dr Vesna Roi took the AOA Osteopathic Oath and, if she did, as a Christian she will want to keep her oath. The oath says:
quote:
"I will be mindful always of my great responsibility to preserve the health and the life of my patients, to retain their confidence and respect both as a physician and a friend who will guard their secrets with scrupulous honor and fidelity, to perform faithfully my professional duties..."
A patient can choose a doctor. It doesn't work the other way round. If a Christian doctor can decline a patient on the grounds of personal or even religious prejudice, the parable of the Good Samaritan has no meaning.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It could be argued that it would be better for the child to be educated and treated by professionals who supported their family's values rather than undermining them. Less confusing, I would have thought.
I don't think a Doctor of Osteopathy has to check on the "values" of her patients in order to give a professional service and I certainly don't think she has to check on the "values" of the patient's parents for that purpose.
True. The 'values' thing is probably more relevant to a school than to a medical treatment. That being so, I'm not sure what problem this doctor has. Maybe she's an immigrant from a culture where this kind of family is very rare.
Perhaps it's for the best that the doctor hands the treatment over to someone else, rather than allow her prejudices to come through in a face to face meeting during the treatment.
Some diversity training might be useful in this situation.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Seems to me that it is a Biblical value to visit the sins of the fathers on the children of the next few generations. I'm not sure that the same applies to the children of two women.
Does the Christian ethic demand that those who care for the children should be mistreated because of some putative sin committed by one or other mother?
And what happens if the caregiver is male? Should the child be mistreated because the mother ran away/died/went nuts...?
Should any child be mistreated by a Christian?
Which opens up the can of worms about "Should any person be mistreated by a Christian?", or it would, if we didn't already know the answer to that one: "No, but they do it anyway".
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I know it's a bit of a tangent, but I find the writing a contra-indication as to the doctor's suitability as a doctor - I've seen much, much better from eight-year-olds. (I suppose this is what we can expect from a generation who have done all their school work on keyboards.)
And the content is immature, as well - to assure the couple that she has approached the matter through prayer (which implies that her god approves of her action), and then sign off with "Blessings". They aren't up to her standards for care, but she can offer them blessings? (Are the blessings intended to change their lifestyle?)
Surely bad handwriting is a stereotype for doctors, regardless of how old they are? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) Also one of the major symptoms of dyslexia is poor handwriting. I think saying 'she's a terrible doctor because she has poor writing' is below the standards of this board. She's a terrible doctor because she refuses to provide care to those who need it because of their parents' orientation, not because she has poor writing ffs.
I am baffled as to why condemning homophobia on the one hand but being ageist on the other is OK. No, doing school work on keyboards does not mean that millenials all have terrible handwriting. Even now, it's very rare for schools to not use handwritten work at all, with the exception of dyslexic students who need to use keyboards (and who usually have poor handwriting anyway).
On topic, saying 'I've prayed about it' and 'blessings' (I'm surprised it wasn't 'yours in Christ') are standard evangelical buzzwords.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
My former doctor proudly displayed a framed copy of a letter he received from the County Medical Board complaining about his handwriting. Doctors are notorious for bad handwriting. Dr. Roi's letter is sloppy but legible.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I know it's a bit of a tangent, but I find the writing a contra-indication as to the doctor's suitability as a doctor - I've seen much, much better from eight-year-olds. (I suppose this is what we can expect from a generation who have done all their school work on keyboards.)
And the content is immature, as well - to assure the couple that she has approached the matter through prayer (which implies that her god approves of her action), and then sign off with "Blessings". They aren't up to her standards for care, but she can offer them blessings? (Are the blessings intended to change their lifestyle?)
Surely bad handwriting is a stereotype for doctors, regardless of how old they are? Also one of the major symptoms of dyslexia is poor handwriting. I think saying 'she's a terrible doctor because she has poor writing' is below the standards of this board. She's a terrible doctor because she refuses to provide care to those who need it because of their parents' orientation, not because she has poor writing ffs.
I am baffled as to why condemning homophobia on the one hand but being ageist on the other is OK. No, doing school work on keyboards does not mean that millenials all have terrible handwriting. Even now, it's very rare for schools to not use handwritten work at all, with the exception of dyslexic students who need to use keyboards (and who usually have poor handwriting anyway).
On topic, saying 'I've prayed about it' and 'blessings' (I'm surprised it wasn't 'yours in Christ') are standard evangelical buzzwords.
Regarding "ageist" I was trying to find a reason for the lack of fluency in the writing. I've seen doctor's bad handwriting, obviously, and it is usually symptomatic of having written very fast because of time pressure. This does not look like that.
It did occur to me that she was using handwriting because it would be more personal than a typed letter.
She could have illformed letters because she usually has fast doctor hand and was deliberately slowing down and printing to avoid the fast joins that distort doctors' writing.
But it was my first impression that that writing was like the sort of writing I see in letters addressed to our neighbourhood committee that are at best borderline abusive. And that made me feel that the writing was itself unkind. Someone on the comments under the article has made a similar point, adding something I hadn't noticed - that the doctor had not signed the bottom, just printed her name, which is odd.
When the behaviour was wrong, and the letter content was wrong, I was probably wrong to criticise the presentation - which looks more like a draft written to be handed to a secretary prior to signing the printout. (I think someone with dyslexia would prefer that form, wouldn't you?) But I still think it was slipshod.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
D'ya think that Jesus checked on the moral bona fides of the parents before he said this? quote:
Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.
Mark 10:14
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Should any child be mistreated by a Christian?
Which opens up the can of worms about "Should any person be mistreated by a Christian?", or it would, if we didn't already know the answer to that one: "No, but they do it anyway".
I shouldn't ask rhetorical questions. After reading
Bilgrimage on the issue of right-to-discriminate laws, it is apparent that certain groups of Christians DEMAND the right to be as nasty as possible to certain other groups.
"If I've prayed about, then I have a proper warrant to discriminate against you" is the refrain.
Do these people actually EVER read their Bibles?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re handwriting: traditionally, apologies are supposed to be hand-written, I think.
Re what Svitlana said (in response to me) about children being better off treated by someone who supports their families values: well, that's the doc's position. All I was trying to say was that if this doctor and the school officials I mentioned really believed in what they said they did, they'd *want* to be good influences in the lives of kids of same-sex parents. I'm not saying they should evangelize--I'm just surprised that they didn't.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re handwriting: traditionally, apologies are supposed to be hand-written, I think.
I don't think anyone's complaining about the fact that the letter was handwritten, but commenting that the letter was written in a rather childish print.
As far as her age goes, Dr. Roi went to college in the mid-80s. You can't blame her writing on having used computers at school - she wouldn't have done. So whether or not young'uns have bad writing because they are taught keyboarding instead is irrelevant - Dr. Roi isn't young.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Good article at HuffPost by their marriage equality expert. There's also a video, which I didn't watch.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I actually can't see anything wrong with the contents of the letter. The doctor is courteous and apologetic and had obviously arranged with another doctor to look after the child.
We all have situations that make us uncomfortable and she has acknowledged that her feelings would interfere with the doctor/patient relationship. I remember one patient that I felt I could not look after because he was very violent and had a history of child abuse, but one of my colleagues felt able to cope. Another time I accepted a patient that colleague did not want on his caseload. It is important that we all acknowledge that doctors and other health practitioners are just human beings who have to be allowed to practice in the way that best serves them and their patients.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Bib, if she'd explained she couldn't treat the child because she was the white adopted child of black parents and she had deeply held beliefs about race would that be acceptable too?
Honestly, the only response I can give is probably too hellish. I am utterly disgusted by this. Christianity is morally bankrupt to continue to allow this inhumanity to its fellow beings.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
The article I linked to, just above, thoughtfully considers both the family's and the doctor's sides.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
It's shocking to me that people with such prejudice get to become doctors at all. Is there no screening test to discover attitudes and personalities before taking these people on?
How can they be trusted with our lives when they have no idea about such simple, basic stuff?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
That article is great, GK. The doctor is probably a lovely, compassionate person. She's just very misguided on this. The solution isn't to vilify her, but to help raise her awareness and understanding. She evidently wants to do the right thing, and follow Christ. It's very sad that in trying to do so, she's acted in the opposite spirit.
And very sad for the family too. I hope they have found a good doctor who will care for their child.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
...who have to be allowed to practice in the way that best serves them and their patients.
I don't think they do. They are not entitled to pick and choose patients based on prejudice.
Like all absolute statements in the real world of pressure testing that won't always be reasonable. Someone who has recently had a traumatic experience at the hands of the police might not be best placed to treat a burly copper, and if their colleagues can cover for that emotional need of theirs I think that is fine.
Likewise patients who *do* certain things that make them tricky for a particular individual are in a different category - worrying about violence, for instance, is not prejudice.
But when you have a healthcare professional who has a whole category of individuals that on principle they won't see then the situation is intractable. As others have said we wouldn't tolerate such prejudice based on gender, religion or race so we shouldn't tolerate it based on sexuality either.
(It gets even more daft when they won't help their babies either!)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Bib, if she'd explained she couldn't treat the child because she was the white adopted child of black parents and she had deeply held beliefs about race would that be acceptable too?
Honestly, the only response I can give is probably too hellish. I am utterly disgusted by this. Christianity is morally bankrupt to continue to allow this inhumanity to its fellow beings.
I'm not sure we can blame 'Christianity' as such, but it would be interesting to see if the pastor of her particular church approves of her decision.
As a Christian I believe it's possible to disagree with someone else's family structure for theological reasons yet still offer them a service. Most Christian doctors in a secular and pluralistic country are surely aware that their patients are likely come from all sorts of religious and social backgrounds, and it doesn't make sense to be too fussy about it. In the UK it would almost be a complete non-starter; you'd end up rejecting most of your patients!
I also think it's a problem for Christian approval to attach itself primarily to behaviours rather than to faith. IMO it should be the other way round. But in any case, a secular job is a secular job. In the UK we sometimes have Christian medical staff who fall foul of the rules, not due to sexuality AFAIK, but usually because someone accuses them of evangelising on the job. They have to be very careful.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arrested and taken to a hospital in Boston I doubt that any doctor or nurse on the staff wanted to take care of him and save his life. But they did. They're health care professionals and that's what they do.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arrested and taken to a hospital in Boston I doubt that any doctor or nurse on the staff wanted to take care of him and save his life. But they did. They're health care professionals and that's what they do.
Only because his parents weren't gay, apparently.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Should any child be mistreated by a Christian?
Which opens up the can of worms about "Should any person be mistreated by a Christian?", or it would, if we didn't already know the answer to that one: "No, but they do it anyway".
I shouldn't ask rhetorical questions. After reading
Bilgrimage on the issue of right-to-discriminate laws, it is apparent that certain groups of Christians DEMAND the right to be as nasty as possible to certain other groups.
"If I've prayed about, then I have a proper warrant to discriminate against you" is the refrain.
Do these people actually EVER read their Bibles?
Yeh, but probably give more uncritical attention to Ezra, Nehemiah, Joshua and Judges than one might consider ideal.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I tried to find a new GP recently; one office told me the doctor only accepted maternity patients. WTF
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
(damn browser)
? It wasn't a specialist ob/gyn, just a greedy GP. In any other business, that would be age and sex discrimination, but doctors get away with all sorts of greed and laziness.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
First of all, Lutherchik knows how I feel about equal rights. The state neighboring mine is just as unevolved as her state in that they just cannot add the words (she knows what that means).
That said, I am going to defend the doctor to a point.
The AMA code of ethics does say
VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.
Often times a care provider may decline to serve a patient for a myriad of reasons. It could be a personality clash, it could be because what the patient wants and what the doctor can provide differ, it could be for religious reasons (as this case seems to be). As long as the state does not have the words regarding civil rights, the doctor is free to decline service.
At the same time, though the doctor is obliged to make an appropriate referral to another doctor who can provide service. This doctor did. She mentioned the other doctor's name three times as I read the letter to the moms.
What this doctor did is perfectly ethical as far as it goes.
However, if I as a parent, were seeking services for my child from this doctor, I would be ethically bound to discontinue my relationship with her. Again, I strongly support equal rights for all and if I would see someone being denied services because the doctor has a moral problem with two mom's of a baby; I do not want to associate with her.
Just recently in my state a florist declined to provide flowers to a same sex wedding. The states attorney general filed suit because she violated our state's civil rights statue. The judge ruled that the florist's religious views has no bearing on her service to legitimate customers (oddly, the florist had provided arrangements to both men on other occasions--she knew they were gay even then). The florist was fined $2000 dollars for her denial of services. She is refusing to pay, which means the state will revoke her Business License.
If this doctor were practicing in my state she would stand to lose her medical license.
The unfortunate thing is the doctor could not look to serve the child regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. Would she have denied service to the child if the parents were an unmarried heterosexual couple? What is the difference? A child is a child.
Ultimately, this is the reason why I would stop going to her. She obviously would not have my child's best interest in mind.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.
I don't think that covers them for discrimination though. We've discussed this on the bakery thread as well - a baker can choose not to bake a cake for a couple because they are too busy, they don't have enough money to pay for the cake, or any other arbitrary reason not otherwise stated, but they can't turn them down because they are gay or black or some other protected characteristic.
I presume it would be the same for doctors - they can turn down the patient relationship for financial reasons, they doubt their own expertise for a particular problem, they are too busy or whatever but not because the patient is gay or black.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I actually can't see anything wrong with the contents of the letter.
What's wrong with the letter is that, if it were true, the doctor could not have written it.
I suppose it is possible that there could be a doctor who detests gay people so much that they can't bear to speak civilly to them or their children, but has just enough self-awareness to realise that this would be a bar to acting as their physician. I'm not an expert on medical ethics, so I suppose it may be the case that such a doctor has a right or duty to decline to act.
But the letter is clearly not written by such a doctor. It is demonstrable proof that this doctor can engage with lesbians with purported civility, pretending to care about their feelings and well-being, and giving the impression of wanting to preserve a relationship of good will. Given her actions, we know it's all bollocks, of course, but these are at least serviceable bollocks. This doctor can plainly fake it well enough to provide a professional service to people whom she despises.
And therefore she is without excuse.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The reason why the doctor in Michigan can discriminate is because its civil rights laws do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In the case of the baker who refused to provide a wedding cake in Oregon, the baker violated Oregon civil rights laws do prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Likewise, the florist in Washington violated Washington which also has the words prohibiting discrimination based on orientation.
The AMA code of ethics allows for discrimination unless it is specifically prohibited by law.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The AMA code of ethics allows for discrimination unless it is specifically prohibited by law.
Thanks, I didn't know about the variation in protection by state law. Which is disturbing to think its legal to refuse to serve gay couples in restaurants etc.
I think it is a stretch to say that the AMA code of ethics allows for discrimination - the quoted section is not really talking about discrimination but rather freedom to practice.
In fact searching on their website I found;
quote:
E-9.12... 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
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
In reality only 30% of the physicians in the US are members of the AMA. While the AMA can initiate disciplinary procedures against its members, it does not have the power to revoke a license. That power resides in the state. Consequently, since Michigan does not ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, the physician will not face any serious professional consequences for refusing to care for the child.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Yes, I was just reading up - it looks like the AMA is more like a glorified union or guild rather than a regulator. Do states not have any regulatory guidelines that go beyond the legislation of the state?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The letter from the doc to the couple actually reads as heartfelf, though ridiculous. The doc could have easily transferred to someone else without revealing personal feelings and avoided the misguided attempt to express things with integrity.
In Canada this would result I think in medical licensing college investigstion and discipline.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
