• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

No, sir. Many, many physicians don't take the Hippocratic Oath (choosing an alternative oath instead) and haven't done so for over 30 years.
Can you cite one which condones declining treatment for a six days old child because of ignorant bigotry?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

A zombie apocalypse is also a scary thought, and about as likely to occur as this scenario that you've outlined.

Zombies don't exist. Christians Do. So I would say the likelihood of the latter is far greater.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Can you cite one which condones declining treatment for a six days old child because of ignorant bigotry?

Non sequitur and entirely irrelevant to my point.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Zombies don't exist. Christians Do. So I would say the likelihood of the latter is far greater.
Then you would be wrong, because the likelihood of both is absolutely zero.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Non sequitur and entirely irrelevant to my point.
You tied to excuse the bigotry because she may have taken a different version or different oath as a physician. Now when asked if you know any that would condone it, it becomes irrelevant or more like you are fresh out of excuses?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Then you would be wrong, because the likelihood of both is absolutely zero.
The point is not a country run entirely as a theocracy but the damage that results from even isolated manifestations of such bigotry as that of this doctor.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Then you would be wrong, because the likelihood of both is absolutely zero.

Mathematically you are absolutely incorrect. The likelihood is small to that I concede. But Zombies don't exist so yes ZERO.

Christians Do. Zealous Christians do. Zealous Christians in Office do. So the possibility is there. Mathematically speaking.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Then you would be wrong, because the likelihood of both is absolutely zero.

It seems that many on the right would sure like to enshrine xtian dogma into our laws. However, in our current pluralistic society, you are probably right that they won't be able to take over the country.

But as mentioned, in small rural towns, there may not be many options. My town has 3,000 people in it; the county has 20,000 people in it. We must have at least 20 churches in the county - maybe more. As far as I know, they are all xtian of some variety or another.

If our doctors ever refused to take care of someone - or their child- due to their beliefs, it's a long way to another doctor...

Luckily I'm in California; and most of the doctors come from other areas in the state; so at least so far not a problem. But I know a local friend of mine who happens to be transgender is always very concerned about finding doctors willing and able to work with her on medical issues.

Let's hope it continues to not be a problem in our country. I don't want any theology - sharia or xtian - taking over.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You tied to excuse the bigotry because she may have taken a different version or different oath as a physician. Now when asked if you know any that would condone it, it becomes irrelevant or more like you are fresh out of excuses?

Get off my ass, Prometeus. What I did was correct a factual misstatement. I have offered no opinion whatsoever on the OP; I merely corrected the very common misconception that physicians routinely take the Hippocratic Oath these days when many do not.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Get off my ass, Prometeus.
Please do not delude yourself, I have do desire to get on your ass in any way shape or form.

What I did was correct a factual misstatement.
No, you did not. You attempted, but the fact is that physicians today take an oath which is for all practical purposes the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath, and not a single on condones such bigotry. So the refusal to see the infant is a clear violation of such oaths.

I have offered no opinion whatsoever on the OP
Not directly you did not, but your attempted correction, speak volumes also.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

I don't think you understand why physicians so often choose not to take the Hippocratic Oath. I'll leave it to you to research this. What you're trying to do is suck me into a discussion I don't wish to have. I have made no comment on this particular physician's decision, and my sole purpose in posting on this thread was to correct a very common misconception. What your agenda is here with me I can't guess, but you need to find somebody else to bait.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

The issues we have include:
> judging the baby for the lifestyles of the mothers
> Does this doctor also refuse to see babies of divorced parents, or single mothers, or unmarried couples? those are probably also against her religion. If she sees babies of those parents, she's a hypocrite through and through (which, of course, she can be - we're just calling her out on it)
> The mothers chose that doctor; maybe there was a reason. Was the substitute doctor as good? As knowledgeable about the circumstances?

In this case, there was another doctor; in a more rural area, there might not have been one.

No one is saying the doctor has to approve of the lifestyles of the mothers. What we are saying is that, having agreed to provide medical care to the baby, it was crappy of her to back out last minute (as far as the mothers were concerned - they had no knowledge of it till the appt).

You say there is nothing to see. We say we see a lousy doctor.

1. Nobody judged the baby
2. Rhetorical and irrelevant questions - you have to ask her who she sees, and your "probably against her religion" is sheer supposition on your part considering nobody knows her religion
3. The "substitute" doctor was one of this doctor's partners, and is a Board Certified MD; if she isn't qualified to do a baby wellness check, then someone would know this by now

This wasn't in a rural area. This was one doctor in a group practice asking another doctor in the group practice to cover a baby wellness exam for her.

She didn't agree to provide medical care to the baby. She works for a group practice. The group practice agreed to take on the child as a patient. We don't have a constitutional right to see the doctor of our choice in a group practice. Their feelings were hurt, and then went to social media to share their hurt feelings with everyone they can.

Meanwhile, the baby got the wellness check that day which was the reason they brought her to the doctor's office.

You don't see a lousy doctor. Unless you take your kids to her, you have no idea what kind of doctor she is to make that statement. You see someone who hurt the feelings of adults. That happens every day. Not everyone is going to like you.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Mathematically you are absolutely incorrect. The likelihood is small to that I concede. But Zombies don't exist so yes ZERO.

Christians Do. Zealous Christians do. Zealous Christians in Office do. So the possibility is there. Mathematically speaking.
If a radical Christian takeover of the entire medical field is something you feel you need to worry about, knock yourself out.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

But as mentioned, in small rural towns, there may not be many options. My town has 3,000 people in it; the county has 20,000 people in it. We must have at least 20 churches in the county - maybe more. As far as I know, they are all xtian of some variety or another.

If our doctors ever refused to take care of someone - or their child- due to their beliefs, it's a long way to another doctor...
Yes, that's certainly not a good position to be in, but at the same time, not the fault of the doctor. I'm guessing that if this doctor were the only one available for miles around, she might have made a different choice than she did.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

I don't think you understand why physicians so often choose not to take the Hippocratic Oath.
Now that IS irrelevant.

What you're trying to do is suck me into
Is this some sort of fetish for you? First the ass think now the sucking...

and my sole purpose in posting on this thread was to correct a very common misconception.
Is that why you dismissed Pete's premise that the doctor's license should be revoked?

What your agenda is here with me I can't guess, but you need to find somebody else to bait.
And there you go again with the innuendos.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You're determined to miss the point, so I'll quit trying. I should have known better. My mistake.

Missing the point is a bad habit for some people

Rosa Parks broke a law. Was she a "perpetrator of injustice" too?

She didn't. Did you listen to the clip? She never said "all", never said "freeloaders" and never even implied it. The OP was wrong and misleading, just as Beau said.

And it's happened before that a man kills his wife. So does that mean we women should all be afraid to get married in the event our husbands decide to kill us?

I'm a woman. And a fiscal conservative. No conservatives have declared war on me. And I've done just fine in my life.

Who's Bart?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ns-first-black-w-110-a-15.html#post1063949980
Ah, I get it now. I'm a bad person for calling her a young woman. Neat! What would have been a more appropriate name for her then?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ns-first-black-w-110-a-28.html#post1063951638

Can you educate me on what specific ways the Republicans are "actively courting the southern white bigot vote"? I live in NH so I'm not in the south nor am I a bigot, so I wouldn't know how they are doing that.

What are the black and Hispanic voters looking for that the Democrats are delivering to them, by the way? I'm also curious about what is in their platform that is specifically beneficial to either or both of those groups, and are targeted to them and not the southern white bigots?

And is Mia Love stupid for picking the Republican side to run on? From the sound of your post it would appear that the Republicans made a big mistake helping to elect a black woman if their target demographic is southern white bigots? And how do they explain their support of Tim Scott to all the white bigots in South Carolina? He seems an odd choice in the middle of the area they supposedly are trying to demonstrate an aversion for minorities in order to impress the white bigots.

And they corrected it. So they made a mistake that they shouldn't have made. What is the big deal, and what are you looking to happen now?

Wait - wut? Left wingers don't care about child safety?

Interestingly, it often happens with examples of the right being bigots. The one's who claim to not be bigots have to pretend they don't see the bigotry
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

She didn't agree to provide medical care to the baby.
Of course she did that is why she did set up the appointment based on a prenatal visit, only to deny it later.

She works for a group practice.
Irrelevant. This entire thread is about the actions of that doctor.

We don't have a constitutional right to see the doctor of our choice in a group practice.
Irrelevant stupid drivel.

Their feelings were hurt
As a result of discrimination. Have you ever been discriminated against? If so you were or are OK with it?
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

It is astounding the level of denials and inability to see what this kind of discrimination can lead to.

Not astounding at all. It is another example of "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue"

In a time when bigotry is socially disapproved of, how else can a right winger who wants social approval support other right wingers without pretending to be blind to the bigotry of their colleagues?

That's why when a right winger says or does something that is obviously bigoted, they must pretend that it really means something else. In this case, it's not about a policy of segregation - it's about the parents hurt feelings

Because the water black people got from the black people's water fountains was the same water white people got from the white's only water fountain.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

If a radical Christian takeover of the entire medical field is something you feel you need to worry about, knock yourself out.
Your strawman looks great. Where would you draw the line. Life lost? Multiple lives lost? How many?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Yes, that's certainly not a good position to be in, but at the same time, not the fault of the doctor.
Of course not, the doctor did not choose to be a bigot for no reason.

I'm guessing that if this doctor were the only one available for miles around, she might have made a different choice than she did.
Good guess, good guess. Baseless as it is, but a good one.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Of course she did that is why she did set up the appointment based on a prenatal visit, only to deny it later.

Irrelevant. This entire thread is about the actions of that doctor.

Irrelevant stupid drivel.

As a result of discrimination. Have you ever been discriminated against? If so you were or are OK with it?

You don't know much about group practices, I see. You don't always get the doctor you want. Sometimes you see a different one. It isn't a national tragedy when you can't see the one. It happens all the time.

It isn't irrelevant that she works for a group practice. Again, you don't know what a group practice is.

Not irrelevant stupid drivel. It's a fact. They have no right to demand a specific pediatrician.

We've all been discriminated against. Not everyone likes everyone else. Most adults don't whine about it. Thank goodness.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You don't know much about group practices, I see. You don't always get the doctor you want. Sometimes you see a different one. It isn't a national tragedy when you can't see the one. It happens all the time.

It isn't irrelevant that she works for a group practice. Again, you don't know what a group practice is.

Not irrelevant stupid drivel. It's a fact. They have no right to demand a specific pediatrician.

We've all been discriminated against. Not everyone likes everyone else. Most adults don't whine about it. Thank goodness.

And so we haave to pretend the issue is that they couldn't get a specific doctor in a group practice

No matter what, tb will never acknowledge the issue - they couldn't get a specific doctor in a group practice because they're lesbians
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You don't know much about group practices, I see. You don't always get the doctor you want. Sometimes you see a different one.
Are you being obtuse or you are really not capable to grasp the issue? It is not about group practice or who saw the infant but strictly about the action of one single doctor. She agreed to be the pediatrician of the infant in a prenatal visit. She set up the appointment and the declined to see the infant. She was not hit by a bus, was not on the moon or on vacation, she did not want to see the infant, because she is a bigot. Which part of any of this do you have so much difficulty getting?
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

To be quite honest this did surprise me. For some reason I thought that educated people can and would rise above such blatant bigotry, but I guess that low life imbeciles exist in every walk of life.
This doctor refused to treat an infant because the parents are gay.
Lesbian couple says Michigan pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation | 7online.com

Seems like a daily race to the media with somebody somewhere trying to spin something into racism / discrimination.

It is becoming tiresome.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Are you being obtuse or you are really not capable to grasp the issue? It is not about group practice or who saw the infant but strictly about the action of one single doctor. She agreed to be the pediatrician of the infant in a prenatal visit. She set up the appointment and the declined to see the infant. She was not hit by a bus, was not on the moon or on vacation, she did not want to see the infant, because she is a bigot. Which part of any of this do you have so much difficulty getting?

I'm not having trouble "getting" what your incessant whining posts are about. You think the doctor is a bigot. She's hurt your feelings, too. I don't really care. This is a non-story. Yes, the doctor didn't want to see the baby and had her partner see the baby. Wow. Big terrible tragedy. The baby is fine. The baby got her wellness check. That's what they wanted, and that's what they got. That's why you take your baby in for these checks.

Don't expect everyone to share your outrage.
 
Back
Top Bottom