California doctors can't refuse treatment to gays on religious grounds, court rules

Kernel Sanders · 08-19-08, 01:37 AM

Source [ LA Times | California doctors can't refuse treatment to gays on religious grounds, court rules]

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO -- Doctors may not discriminate against gays and lesbians in medical treatment, even if the procedures being sought conflict with physicians' religious beliefs, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday.

In its second major decision advancing gay rights this year, the state high court ruled that religious physicians must obey a state law that bars businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

"The 1st Amendment's right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the . . . antidiscrimination requirements," Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the court.

The decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Guadalupe T. Benitez, an Oceanside lesbian who lives with her partner and wanted to become pregnant with donated sperm.

Benitez filed a suit after Dr. Christine Brody, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, said she would not perform an intrauterine insemination. In her lawsuit, Benitez alleged that Brody said her religious views prevented her from providing the procedure to a lesbian.

Another physician at the clinic, Dr. Douglas Fenton, later told Benitez that the staff was uncomfortable helping her conceive a child and advised her to find another doctor outside the medical group, Benitez said.

The doctors denied the allegations. Brody said she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, heterosexual or homosexual.

The state high court said the doctors' constitutional rights to freedom of religion did not trump the state antidiscrimination law because the state has a compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical care.

But the doctors "remain free to voice their objections, religious or otherwise, to the [law's] prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination," Kennard wrote.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I believe that access to medical treatment is important and should not be refused due to a doctor's religious beliefs (even if this particular case involves non-vital treatment). However, the decision basically says that state anti-discrimination law trumps the Constitution, which doesn't make much sense to me.

MC.no.spin · 08-19-08, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

Source [ LA Times | California doctors can't refuse treatment to gays on religious grounds, court rules]

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I believe that access to medical treatment is important and should not be refused due to a doctor's religious beliefs (even if this particular case involves non-vital treatment). However, the decision basically says that state anti-discrimination law trumps the Constitution, which doesn't make much sense to me.

If the Doctor had simply referred them to another Doctor who would do the treatment, that would protect them, according to one of the CA Superior Court Judges:

Quote:

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, the court's most conservative justice, said in a separate concurring opinion that doctors could protect against liability by referring patients to other doctors in their practice who did not share their religious objections.

But he conceded that sole practitioners might have little choice and hinted that he might vote in a future case to spare them from the requirement.

"I am not so certain this balance of competing interests would produce the same result in the case of a sole practitioner," Baxter wrote. The court did not specifically address that question.

California doctors can't refuse treatment to gays on religious grounds, court rules - Los Angeles Times

Dezaad · 08-19-08, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

Source [ LA Times | California doctors can't refuse treatment to gays on religious grounds, court rules]

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I believe that access to medical treatment is important and should not be refused due to a doctor's religious beliefs (even if this particular case involves non-vital treatment). However, the decision basically says that state anti-discrimination law trumps the Constitution, which doesn't make much sense to me.

It is my understanding that a compelling public interest can 'trump' Constitutional guarantees, according to many rulings by the Supreme Court. (Like yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theatre is not protected freedom of speech).

However, I am not sure that all medical treatments fall under the category "Compelling Public Interest". Where a deadly disease or injury is involved, I could see it. But, this woman was looking to be artificially inseminated.

However, in this case it may be the fact that these providers have no right to engage in discrimination by using religion as an excuse. Suppose the only doctors in a small rural area were Christians and they all refused to treat an STD because STDs are spread by fornication. Should they have the right to do so?

There is a clash here between freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination. In my view, freedom from discrimination should win out in most cases.

And where, exactly, does it end? Can a doctor refuse treatment because his patient hasn't prayed enough for god's mercy, and he believes he cannot in good conscience act without god's sanction? Or, just to pit religion against religion, the person has prayed, but to Allah, whom the Christian doctor doesn't recognize as Jehovah... etc.

P/N · 08-19-08, 03:51 AM

I believe that if a doctor takes the oath and is refusing to treat someone because they are homosexual, they probably should find a new line of work. Doctor's are there to help people, not refuse treatment because of their sexual orientation. Maybe I'm being a little harsh here, but I have yet to meet a doctor who would do something like this, it's just unethical.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-19-08, 03:54 AM

I disagree with this opinion, considering the parameters of the case. Firstly, if this was a life-threatening or an emergency procedure, then I would agree, and the doctor, IMO, would have two choices; treat the patient, or surrender your medical license. But this was not an emergency procedure. It was a procedure that could have either waited, or be performed by a different doctor.

Secondly, Spin is correct. All the doctor needed to do was give a referral, and all of this could have been avoided.

And a practical thought. I don't think I would want a doctor treating me that had a problem with who I was or what my sexual orientation was. This would not instill a lot of confidence in my opinion of how that doctor would treat me.

shuamort · 08-19-08, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

And a practical thought. I don't think I would want a doctor treating me that had a problem with who I was or what my sexual orientation was. This would not instill a lot of confidence in my opinion of how that doctor would treat me.

Or in other words, would you really want a bigot in your va-jay-jay?

What I'm curious about is this part:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FTA

The doctors denied the allegations. Brody said she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, heterosexual or homosexual.

Since homosexuals can now get married in CA, would Brody perform the operation? If yes, then this is not an anti-gay thing.

Frankly, this whole thing sucks on both sides. It's wrong to have these folks forced to perform things against their beliefs and their beliefs are pretty ****ed up too. Personally, I would err on the side of caution and say that since this was an elective surgery that the state has no right to intervene.

rathi · 08-19-08, 03:22 PM

If this doctor had a brain, she could have simply made up some excuse and referred the patient to another doctor. However, this doctor showed she does not take medical care seriously, as her personal feelings outweigh her medical duties. She should be stripped of license to practice medicine. Certain careers involve literally having the power of live and death, and anyone who isn't totally committed shouldn't be in that career. This has nothing at all do with religion. It has everything to do with the requirements for a job.

rivrrat · 08-19-08, 03:27 PM

I disagree with many of California's laws, and this is yet another. No person should be forced to provide service to another against their will.

Arcana XV · 08-19-08, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

I disagree with many of California's laws, and this is yet another. No person should be forced to provide service to another against their will.

I would agree if it involved a profession that is not into saving lives. What if a doctor refuses to save someone's life, or refuses life-saving treatment for whatever personal or religious reasons?

I know that's not the case in this particular incident, but your view that no person should have to provide service to another against their will could very well conflict in a major way with the Hypocrathic Oath.

rivrrat · 08-19-08, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcana XV

I would agree if it involved a profession that is not into saving lives. What if a doctor refuses to save someone's life, or refuses life-saving treatment for whatever personal or religious reasons?

I know that's not the case in this particular incident, but your view that no person should have to provide service to another against their will could very well conflict in a major way with the Hypocrathic Oath.

That would only happen in an ER, and it would then be up to the hospital to decide if they want such a person on their staff.