• 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.

Lursa said:
It worked for Rosa Parks.
Click to expand...

And?

Okay, let's play the hypothetical game. I want to discuss this slippery slope. Barack Obama has forced me to buy health insurance or else I have to pay a penalty. Before he leaves office, he's going to force me to buy a hybrid car or pay a penalty, because he can. A mentally compromised kid whose mother had guns went to a school and shot some innocent children with her guns, so we should take guns away from everyone with kids because this could now become a weekly occurrence.

That was fun.

So is this thread about hypotheticals and what may happen? Then you're right, I'm in the wrong thread. I'm posting about the very minor incident here that has people all jacked up.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

It makes sense. The physician said she likely couldn't develop a proper patient physician relationship due to the parents living in sin. If it was me I would have still treated the child, but if there are other options and the physician felt they couldn't provide the best care because their lifestyle was a barrier in developing a proper patient/physician relationship then that should be respected. It's not as if she didn't arrange for other care.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
The possibility of harm was still present and didn't occur only because of other circumstances. No harm is truly being caused to patrons of a restaurant for being refused service because they are a mixed race couple. No physical harm is actually caused from a teacher insisting she not have to teach black students or boys or Christians right?
Click to expand...

What possibility of harm was present in this situation?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
The limb is creaking, time to stop climbing further down that branch. :mrgreen:

No, there was no possibility for harm here. And just stop the silly conflation of race and religion with sexual orientation. Apples and gay oranges.
Click to expand...

The same situation exists here for potential for harm that would exist if the refusal was due to the relative religions of the parents or the actual religions of the parents or even races of the parents. So where exactly is the difference? It is just as much a choice when it comes to choosing to be with someone of a different religion or race as it is choosing to be with someone of a certain sex/gender.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

digsbe said:
It makes sense. The physician said she likely couldn't develop a proper patient physician relationship due to the parents living in sin. If it was me I would have still treated the child, but if there are other options and the physician felt they couldn't provide the best care because their lifestyle was a barrier in developing a proper patient/physician relationship then that should be respected. It's not as if she didn't arrange for other care.
Click to expand...

Too much common sense and doesn't allow for the drama and outrage set to have their screaming time. :lamo
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
What possibility of harm was present in this situation?
Click to expand...

Financial hardships of having to look for a doctor further away. The possibility of not finding a doctor who would or could take them as a patient, leading to something not being diagnosed that could have been or missing necessary vaccinations.

At the very least, the same possibility of harm to someone that exist when the refusal is based on race or religion, things that are protected against by federal laws and even state laws.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

digsbe said:
It makes sense. The physician said she likely couldn't develop a proper patient physician relationship due to the parents living in sin. If it was me I would have still treated the child, but if there are other options and the physician felt they couldn't provide the best care because their lifestyle was a barrier in developing a proper patient/physician relationship then that should be respected. It's not as if she didn't arrange for other care.
Click to expand...

Of course. That's the obvious here. But that apparently isn't good enough. There seems to be some need to punish the doctor.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
Financial hardships of having to look for a doctor further away. The possibility of not finding a doctor who would or could take them as a patient, leading to something not being diagnosed that could have been or missing necessary vaccinations.

At the very least, the same possibility of harm to someone that exist when the refusal is based on race or religion, things that are protected against by federal laws and even state laws.
Click to expand...

No, none of those things were a possibility in this situation. She had her partner see the child, on the same day she was supposed to see the child. You are making up possibilities out of thin air. That's disingenuous.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
The same situation exists here for potential for harm that would exist if the refusal was due to the relative religions of the parents or the actual religions of the parents or even races of the parents. So where exactly is the difference? It is just as much a choice when it comes to choosing to be with someone of a different religion or race as it is choosing to be with someone of a certain sex/gender.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're really not reading today. The difference is one is protected by constitution and law and the other isn't.

And let's be clear, there was no refusal of service in any event. The GROUP provides the service, it's one of the wonderful things about setting up a medical group. If you're sick that day, or otherwise occupied, another physician from the group sees your patients.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

digsbe said:
It makes sense. The physician said she likely couldn't develop a proper patient physician relationship due to the parents living in sin. If it was me I would have still treated the child, but if there are other options and the physician felt they couldn't provide the best care because their lifestyle was a barrier in developing a proper patient/physician relationship then that should be respected. It's not as if she didn't arrange for other care.
Click to expand...

After she had agreed to take the child as a patient, knowing that the parents were lesbians before hand. And she couldn't have known that there would be alternatives available that would be willing or able to take on the additional patients. It begs the question, what would she have done if her fellow doctor couldn't have seen the baby that day? Would she have saw the baby or cancelled the appointment?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
After she had agreed to take the child as a patient, knowing that the parents were lesbians before hand. And she couldn't have known that there would be alternatives available that would be willing or able to take on the additional patients. It begs the question, what would she have done if her fellow doctor couldn't have seen the baby that day? Would she have saw the baby or cancelled the appointment?
Click to expand...

So, pretty much all strawmen and hypotheticals. Oh lord, the sky is falling! :roll:
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
Wow, you're really not reading today. The difference is one is protected by constitution and law and the other isn't.

And let's be clear, there was no refusal of service in any event. The GROUP provides the service, it's one of the wonderful things about setting up a medical group. If you're sick that day, or otherwise occupied, another physician from the group sees your patients.
Click to expand...

Please provide the exact part of the Constitution which protects people from being discriminated against by businesses based on their race or religion. Exact wording there.

There was a refusal of service because she had agreed to take their child as a patient, not her colleague. We don't know what she would have done had her colleague not been able to take on another patient, but likely would have canceled at least future appointments if not that appointment.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
No, none of those things were a possibility in this situation. She had her partner see the child, on the same day she was supposed to see the child. You are making up possibilities out of thin air. That's disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Yes they were possibilities because there is always the possibility that the other doctors in a practice are booked up, have too many patients. Just because it didn't happen in this case, doesn't mean the possibility didn't exist.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
After she had agreed to take the child as a patient, knowing that the parents were lesbians before hand. And she couldn't have known that there would be alternatives available that would be willing or able to take on the additional patients. It begs the question, what would she have done if her fellow doctor couldn't have seen the baby that day? Would she have saw the baby or cancelled the appointment?
Click to expand...

Who knows, but why should they be entitled to her services simply because they are lesbians? If a physician believes they can't provide the highest quality of care to someone due to certain factors then the responsible thing is to have them seen by someone else. It's not much different from practitioners referring someone elsewhere for abortion services or those who are unwilling to see drug addicts or other patient populations they may not be able to establish a proper relationship with.

This issue is being blown up way out of proportion, likely due to this special rights movement of LGBTQ entitlement with blatant disrespect of the rights and beliefs of others who may have issues with it.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
Yes they were possibilities because there is always the possibility that the other doctors in a practice are booked up, have too many patients. Just because it didn't happen in this case, doesn't mean the possibility didn't exist.
Click to expand...

It didn't happen in this case because the possibility didn't exist. Did you not read any of the links?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
According to the SCOTUS they are indeed. Look up protected classes. And every state has PA laws, most of them are enshrined in the state's constitution.
Click to expand...

Many of those states have PA laws that also protect based on sexuality.

The SCOTUS has said the ERA is constitutional, not that those are constitutionally protected rights. There is a difference. The ERA could be easily repealed by a simple vote of Congress and Presidential approval, and its done. No more protection of people from discrimination by businesses/individuals based on things like religion or race. While those things could be still protected from unequal treatment under the law, they would not be protected from private individuals discriminating against them based on those traits.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
Please provide the exact part of the Constitution which protects people from being discriminated against by businesses based on their race or religion. Exact wording there.

There was a refusal of service because she had agreed to take their child as a patient, not her colleague. We don't know what she would have done had her colleague not been able to take on another patient, but likely would have canceled at least future appointments if not that appointment.
Click to expand...

First, google protected classes and do your own damn homework. Second, you so obviously don't know or understand how medical groups work. The parents are signed on as patients of the GROUP. They may be seen/assigned to a particular doctor in the group, but if that doctor is unavailable FOR ANY REASON, they are seen by another from the group.

Look, it's blindingly clear you are just pissed because this one doctor didn't approve of the gay parents and she should be horsewhipped at high noon for the gross violation of having a religion that doesn't comport with your beliefs.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
It didn't happen in this case because the possibility didn't exist. Did you not read any of the links?
Click to expand...

Do you understand what possibility means? Yes, it was possible that the child might not have been seen that day due to her refusal to see the child based on the sexual orientation of the parents. We don't know what she would have done had her colleague refused to see the baby, whether due to already being booked or agreeing with the first doctor. There is nothing in the story that says that the doctor would have seen the child had the other doctor refused. But along with this, the doctor had already agreed to take the baby as a new patient of hers (prenatal), and even if she had seen the child this time, the possibility does exist that had she simply told them that that was the only appointment she could see them, she couldn't possibly know that the couple could then find someone else to see them, again whether due to other doctors having too may patients or due to their own religious objections.

Possibility is different than probability.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

digsbe said:
It makes sense. The physician said she likely couldn't develop a proper patient physician relationship due to the parents living in sin. If it was me I would have still treated the child, but if there are other options and the physician felt they couldn't provide the best care because their lifestyle was a barrier in developing a proper patient/physician relationship then that should be respected. It's not as if she didn't arrange for other care.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with you, but mainly it's because you've outlined the conditions.

1) If there are other (presumably equivalent) options,
2) Physician felt she couldn't provide the best care, and
3) Physician arranged an alternative

That's a workable principle.

And I'm not really addressing you, but the hypotheticals are just an attempt to come to some understanding of a principle to guide care by medical professionals. The question some of us are asking is does the provider's ethical or moral obligation change if one or more of those conditions are NOT met? Or are partially or inadequately met? Say the only other physician is 25 miles away, has a bad record, and/or is outside the couple's network?

It's ultimately why separate but equal wasn't a good solution - stuff just like that - and why some of us aren't willing to buy into that argument.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
Many of those states have PA laws that also protect based on sexuality.

The SCOTUS has said the ERA is constitutional, not that those are constitutionally protected rights. There is a difference. The ERA could be easily repealed by a simple vote of Congress and Presidential approval, and its done. No more protection of people from discrimination by businesses/individuals based on things like religion or race. While those things could be still protected from unequal treatment under the law, they would not be protected from private individuals discriminating against them based on those traits.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't even take two seconds to look up protected clasess did you? Religion and race are protected by constitutional amendment, federally. And if you can't find ERA verbiage in any state's constitutions you just plain have not looked.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

digsbe said:
Who knows, but why should they be entitled to her services simply because they are lesbians? If a physician believes they can't provide the highest quality of care to someone due to certain factors then the responsible thing is to have them seen by someone else. It's not much different from practitioners referring someone elsewhere for abortion services or those who are unwilling to see drug addicts or other patient populations they may not be able to establish a proper relationship with. This issue is being blown up way out of proportion, likely due to this special rights movement of LGBTQ entitlement with blatant disrespect of the rights and beliefs of others who may have issues with it.
Click to expand...

Bull hockey... why should a child be turned away because the doctor doesn't agree with the lifestyle of the parents? Don't doctors take an oath? Seems some wish to put their feelings ahead of healing those in need of such service.

Citing a personal short coming of the doctor to justify a refusal to serve is justifying a bigotry, not supporting the doctor's belief...

What if the doctor didn't believe in interracial marriage? Or care for socialists, liberals, folks who don't wish to be married but have children?

The ONLY reason the doctor can attempt this is the law hasn't caught up with equality. Soon the doctor's action will be illegal, and that will be a good day...
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

notquiteright said:
Bull hockey... why should a child be turned away because the doctor doesn't agree with the lifestyle of the parents? Don't doctors take an oath? Seems some wish to put their feelings ahead of healing those in need of such service.

Citing a personal short coming of the doctor to justify a refusal to serve is justifying a bigotry, not supporting the doctor's belief...

What if the doctor didn't believe in interracial marriage? Or care for socialists, liberals, folks who don't wish to be married but have children?

The ONLY reason the doctor can attempt this is the law hasn't caught up with equality. Soon the doctor's action will be illegal, and that will be a good day...
Click to expand...

Oh lord, please read the thread first. Everything you just brought up has already been answered, multiple times.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

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

What is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

Doctors can reject patients if they are on Medicaid, or Medicare, why should any other reason not be valid? They can reject patients for almost any reason, except in emergency situations. As a doctor, you indeed get to pick your clients.

Tim-
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
First, google protected classes and do your own damn homework. Second, you so obviously don't know or understand how medical groups work. The parents are signed on as patients of the GROUP. They may be seen/assigned to a particular doctor in the group, but if that doctor is unavailable FOR ANY REASON, they are seen by another from the group.

Look, it's blindingly clear you are just pissed because this one doctor didn't approve of the gay parents and she should be horsewhipped at high noon for the gross violation of having a religion that doesn't comport with your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do know how they work. I'm in one. We still have a regularly assigned doctor for us. Just as these parents went to this doctor and she agreed to be the pediatrician for their baby. While it was always possible that she might not be available for them, this was not the case here. She is refusing to see them due to a completely different reason.

Plus, you have just essentially destroyed her own reasoning here. If they were likely to see other doctors, then how would she develop a necessary doctor/patient/parent relationship with them? Why would it be necessary if she wasn't likely to see them or was going to refuse to see them all along, from them signing on with that group?

Also, you are the one that doesn't understand the way ERA works. It is not in itself a Constitutional protection. It is a protection that is constitutionally sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom