• 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.

Should cops be allowed to respond to a domestic abuse case and choose not to assist for any reason? And if so, what are those reasons?

Did you not read the post???
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

My brain is hurting from the stupidity of your post. The foreskin has more than a dozen functions from pleasure, lubrication, all the way to keeping the area disease and infection free. Why do you think the body would have extra parts that do nothing? Please research the topic before talking about it. Thank you.

You're right of course. My appendix is a great example! :lamo
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Did you not read the post???

Yes, which is why I quoted it and asked.

Policemen and firemen can't refuse to assist someone for any reason, can they? If the answer is "no, they can't", then they can't refuse for religious reasons either....can they?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You went into depth creating that huge strawman there. No appointments were missed or rescheduled. The child had their scheduled appointment and could have scheduled more, but the parents chose to go to another peds group for the future.

For this child, that is true. But the possibility easily existed that it could lead to them having to reschedule. It is a very likely possibility in some areas too.

In cities, the average doctor wait-time is 18.5 days - The Washington Post

This means if a child is turned away due to having gay parents, especially like this one was but where there is not a willing or more likely free/able partner in the practice to see the baby, despite having set up the appointments ahead of time, the parents could be delayed several weeks in getting an appointment from a doctor who can and will see their child for their well baby checkups.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You're right of course. My appendix is a great example! :lamo

Oh boy...

:doh

Please stop. Your ignorance is embarrassing.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Doesn't matter if it did happen, only that when we allow such policies that allow for people to discriminate, to reject patients solely on the basis of something like "I don't approve of the parents'", it can lead to the very thing I am talking about. And we have seen it happen in other issues.

Yes it does. The sky isn't falling and no need to run around screaming it is.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Who says they would have to die to cause hardships for the person, their loved ones? What if their causing a delay in the refusal to see the patient leads to complications? What if that delay leads to requiring more extensive stay in a hospital, more bills? What if it causes people to not get the early diagnosis that would improve their chances?

Even with just these checkups, refusal of service could lead to someone having to either a) drive far out of their way to see a doctor that will take them as a patient only due to something like their sexuality or their parents' sexuality, or b) go outside their insurance network for a doctor that will see them, accept them, not due to the doctor having too many clients or not specializing in what they need, but rather only out of bigotry. Why shouldn't someone be compensated for discrimination that causes them measurable hardship?

Gay Man Dies Day After Michigan Law Allows EMTs To Refuse Treatment to Gay People - Big American News
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Yes it does. The sky isn't falling and no need to run around screaming it is.

No it doesn't. This could just as easily be used by doctors to refuse to see Jews, black people, white people, atheist, Christians, etc. but only for these types of appointments.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

For this child, that is true. But the possibility easily existed that it could lead to them having to reschedule. It is a very likely possibility in some areas too.

In cities, the average doctor wait-time is 18.5 days - The Washington Post

This means if a child is turned away due to having gay parents, especially like this one was but where there is not a willing or more likely free/able partner in the practice to see the baby, despite having set up the appointments ahead of time, the parents could be delayed several weeks in getting an appointment from a doctor who can and will see their child for their well baby checkups.

Again with the hypotheticals.

This doctor ensured that the baby would be seen by her partner on the same day she was supposed to see the baby. What does that have to do with waiting 2 months to get an appointment with your family doctor in Boston?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You think doctors should be able to reject patients because they don't like the patient's job?

What is wrong with you?

They already do, what's wrong with you? But to do so for a patient that is in need of immediate medical treatment is indeed unprofessional and against the law. That wasn't the case here.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Yes it does. The sky isn't falling and no need to run around screaming it is.

The sky isn't falling, but to read this thread, it would appear that bodies are raining down from the skies because all of these doctors all over the country are turning away everyone who is about to die.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

So a doctor refusing to provide non-emergency treatment to a black child would be OK if the child suffered no substantial harm

Separate but equal is not equal.

And there we have the difference between race and sexual orientation. In ALL states race is protected, sexual orientation not so much.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

It's not about humiliation or any other feeling

It's about "separate but equal". It's about "one set of providers for one group and another set for everyone else". It's about segregation.
True, but I was asking the in the light of the claims that no one was hurt. Clearly the lesbian couple was humiliated and that seems to be just fine with some.
In the interest of fairness, I have to say that I suffer no humiliation unless done so by myself to myself. Not something I cherish, but have dome a few times, but I have seen the effects that humiliation has brought on others and it can be bad, very bad to the point of costing lives.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

It isn't my "opinion" on anything. According to both the OP and her words she refused to see the baby because she doesn't approve of the parents' lifestyle choice. What are you disputing about that?

And are you angry because you don't want her to have religious beliefs, or you don't want her to not like gay people? I personally don't care what religion she observes, and I don't care who she likes. The baby got the care it needed.

She stated she doesnt believe in their lifestyle choice because of her religious beliefs.

She can have opinions and she can have religious beliefs. She felt strongly enough to send away a patient.

You choose to only see this incident. I think every single other person in this thread except for 1 or 2 at least see the broader implications of not examining her decision with a view towards allowing other doctors to do the same.

I have not yet once claimed I said she behaved improperly. If there are no laws or policies that demand she treat the child, then she is allowed to do so. My personal opinion of her actions has nothing to do with ***the broader implications her decision can make if other doctors can do the same.*** Again...you dont see the forest for the tree.

Everyone else in the thread does (even if they dont agree she was wrong).
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

For this child, that is true. But the possibility easily existed that it could lead to them having to reschedule. It is a very likely possibility in some areas too.

In cities, the average doctor wait-time is 18.5 days - The Washington Post

This means if a child is turned away due to having gay parents, especially like this one was but where there is not a willing or more likely free/able partner in the practice to see the baby, despite having set up the appointments ahead of time, the parents could be delayed several weeks in getting an appointment from a doctor who can and will see their child for their well baby checkups.

Again, making up could have beens isn't helping your argument.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Ack, I just posted something very similar to that. The issue here isn't that the baby was seen by her partner - it's that people are angry at the doctor because she doesn't like the gay lifestyle.
BS. And you have the audacity to accuse others of lying. The issue is not whether she likes or not the gay lifestyle it is about her bigotry in denying a visit for a 6 days old infant and using religion as an excuse.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

So the doctors who say "We are not accepting new patients" shouldn't be doing that, because you have a right to demand that a doctor sees you?

There is a huge difference between "we cannot see new patients because we already have too many or have reached our reasonable limit" and "we cannot accept you as a patient because you are <gay, straight, not married, Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, a red head, a meat eater, black, have a spouse of a different race, etc.>". One is easily seen as a reasonable limitation based on facts and reality, the other is based on the unprofessionalism of a doctor who can't separate their personal feelings from their chosen profession.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

She stated she doesnt believe in their lifestyle choice because of her religious beliefs.

She can have opinions and she can have religious beliefs. She felt strongly enough to send away a patient.

You choose to only see this incident. I think every single other person in this thread except for 1 or 2 at least see the broader implications of not examining her decision with a view towards allowing other doctors to do the same.

I have not yet once claimed I said she behaved improperly. If there are no laws or policies that demand she treat the child, then she is allowed to do so. My personal opinion of her actions has nothing to do with ***the broader implications her decision can make if other doctors can do the same.*** Again...you dont see the forest for the tree.

Everyone else in the thread does (even if they dont agree she was wrong).

I see someone who didn't hurt the parents or the child in any way. I am of the mindset that people are allowed to have religious beliefs as long as they don't hurt anyone else. You have no made any compelling case that anyone was hurt by her having religious beliefs. Neither has anyone else.
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Just IMO any doctor that believes being gay is a choice and that there is a 'gay lifestyle' is incompetent and unable to properly understand medical science. I wouldnt take my kid anywhere near her and she did the couple a favor.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

True, but I was asking the in the light of the claims that no one was hurt.

I would argue that the idea that entire nation is harmed by segregation is a stronger argument.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

No it doesn't. This could just as easily be used by doctors to refuse to see Jews, black people, white people, atheist, Christians, etc. but only for these types of appointments.

No, it couldn't. Race, religion, creed, they're protected classes in ALL states. Again, sexual orientation not so much.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Again, making up could have beens isn't helping you argument.

It is pretty much the argument because it is why we have made public accommodation laws so broad. The "could have beens" are prevented when we recognize and stop the "didn't quite happen this time"'s.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You have no made any compelling case that anyone was hurt by her having religious beliefs. Neither has anyone else.

Who ever said she did any harm to the baby at all? Please post that. And no one has attempted to say she did.

This has been the discussion:

Lursa said:
You choose to only see this incident. I think every single other person in this thread except for 1 or 2 at least see the broader implications of not examining her decision with a view towards allowing other doctors to do the same.

I have not yet once claimed I said she behaved improperly. If there are no laws or policies that demand she treat the child, then she is allowed to do so. My personal opinion of her actions has nothing to do with ***the broader implications her decision can make if other doctors can do the same.*** Again...you dont see the forest for the tree.

Everyone else in the thread does (even if they dont agree she was wrong).
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

There is a huge difference between "we cannot see new patients because we already have too many or have reached our reasonable limit" and "we cannot accept you as a patient because you are <gay, straight, not married, Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, a red head, a meat eater, black, have a spouse of a different race, etc.>". One is easily seen as a reasonable limitation based on facts and reality, the other is based on the unprofessionalism of a doctor who can't separate their personal feelings from their chosen profession.

So in other words, doctors in a group practice have to see every patient who shows up and demands to see that doctor.

I don't agree. Doctors in a group practice should be free to share patients, and if the patients don't like it, they're free to find another doctor.

Doctors are there to provide medical care. The baby got medical care. The practice did its job.
 
Back
Top Bottom