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

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Declan said:

You can laugh if you want. Claudette Colvin is the first one to have a bus incident. The media just preferred Rosa Parks.

Click to expand...

Who is Claudette Colvin?

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Declan said:

Not really, but that makes for some good soundbytes.

Click to expand...

So insisting that a substantial group of people in the US consistently be given 2nd class and/or separate accommodations like back rows, balconies, etc isnt harmful? Constantly reinforcing that that group is less important, less a part of society, and their needs are secondary to another groups'....harmless to society?

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

This sounds disturbing. Also, this seems odd. The infant isn't gay. How can this be allowed?

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:

But there were other seats, right?

Her wishes didnt matter. Neither did the lesbian couple's.

THere were other seats....what was the harm?

The application of 'equality' had to be established here, for this incident with RP, by the courts. Before that, she was just being asked to take another seat.

And as has been written many times, that is what will now be examined by the courts regarding the incident of the doctor telling the parents to take their baby down the hall to another doctor. The broader recognition of a harmful (to society) pattern.

I know you wont bother to recognize it here....I dont mind. The fact that you avoided RN's direct question about a very applicable example with the bi-racial baby shows you are pretty much out of steam on this. I can rely on my signature below, in green.

Click to expand...

Okay, so you think Rosa Parks wasn't treated unfairly? I'd like to understand your point.

Who is "RN"? And who's talking about a bi-racial baby? This baby wasn't bi-racial.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JANFU said:

Not sure if this was posted - 46 pages to read thru so....
This little nugget was surprising. Underlined.

Doctors weigh morals, ethics in decisions on refusing services - amednews.com
Take, for example, the familiar religious prohibition on blood transfusions, a critical part of the morality of Jehovah's Witnesses. While we are generally used to thinking of Witnesses who refuse blood as patients, it is less well-known that Jehovah's Witness doctors are prohibited from administering transfusions, even to patients who are non-Witnesses, and even if the blood is needed to save the patient's life.

To my knowledge, no one defends a Jehovah's Witness doctor's right to refuse, on the basis of conscience, to administer blood to an exsanguinating non-Witness patient. Among the Witness doctors I have questioned, the consensus is to avoid being alone and on duty in any setting where patients needing transfusions might present. If necessary, they would summon another health care professional to do the procedure.

Click to expand...

I'll admit to knowing almost exactly nothing about Jehovah's Witnesses, or their beliefs. I don't know anything about what their doctors think.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:

So insisting that a substantial group of people in the US consistently be given 2nd class and/or separate accommodations like back rows, balconies, etc isnt harmful? Constantly reinforcing that that group is less important, less a part of society, and their needs are secondary to another groups'....harmless to society?

Click to expand...

There is evidence to suggest that girls perform better in certain academic subjects if they are put into classrooms with only other girls. Not allowing the girls to be treated like they are "2nd class" by allowing them to be segregated at school harms society.

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

rabbitcaebannog said:

This sounds disturbing. Also, this seems odd. The infant isn't gay. How can this be allowed?

Click to expand...

I do not like it.
What I found frightening is that under the AMA code of ethics, a Dr. could be the only one on duty, can, dependent upon the circumstances deny a dying patient medical attention.
Take a quick read if you have the time.
Post 472
Doctors weigh morals, ethics in decisions on refusing services - amednews.com

Take, for example, the familiar religious prohibition on blood transfusions, a critical part of the morality of Jehovah's Witnesses. While we are generally used to thinking of Witnesses who refuse blood as patients, it is less well-known that Jehovah's Witness doctors are prohibited from administering transfusions, even to patients who are non-Witnesses, and even if the blood is needed to save the patient's life.

To my knowledge, no one defends a Jehovah's Witness doctor's right to refuse, on the basis of conscience, to administer blood to an exsanguinating non-Witness patient. Among the Witness doctors I have questioned, the consensus is to avoid being alone and on duty in any setting where patients needing transfusions might present. If necessary, they would summon another health care professional to do the procedure.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

Who is Claudette Colvin?

Click to expand...

The first person to say FU to a Montgomery bus driver.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Henrin said:

Being treated unequally is not a harm by itself. Someone telling you to move is also not a harm.

Click to expand...

I disagree. If I buy a ticket I expect that my ticket gets me the same privilege as anyone else who bought the ticket. I don't think anyone had more right to seats in the front of the bus than she did. By the same token, I also don't believe that she had more right to a seat in the front than anyone else either.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Disclaimer, if I owned a flower shop, bakery or was a photographer, I would be happy to work for anyone who agreed to pay, so I would be happy to build a gay cake or sell flowers for a gay wedding. I understand however why some people would be offended and not want to serve them. I also understand the legal liability associated with refusing to serve gays.

Here's my solution. If a business owner objects to serving gays, have the gays pay for the service with a check made payable to the American Family Association, an anti gay organization. Problem solved, one way or another.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

I'll admit to knowing almost exactly nothing about Jehovah's Witnesses, or their beliefs. I don't know anything about what their doctors think.

Click to expand...

JW refuse blood transfusions as it is in direct contravention of their religious beliefs. 1 Dr on duty, emergency case arrrives, need a blood transfusion, Dr is a JW, can refuse to rovide life saving transfusion. Scary.
That said, US & Canadian case law can have a court order issued to provide transfusions.
Found another tidbit, which is just as disturbing.

VM -- The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection, May 06 ... Virtual Mentor

The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection

Rebecca J. Cook, JD, JSD, and Bernard M. Dickens, LLB, LLM, PhD, LLD

Physicians’ rights to refuse to participate in medical procedures that offend their conscience may be incompatible with patients’ rights to receive lawful, medically indicated treatment. Historically, the goal of medicine has been to provide care to the sick. The World Medical Association’s modern variant of the Hippocratic Oath, The Declaration of Geneva, inspires the graduating physician to pledge that, “The health of my patient will be my first consideration” [1]. For many who enter medicine, the commitment to assist their fellow human beings and pursue a path of personal salvation through this professional calling is religiously inspired. A conflict of interest can arise if the physician’s religious or other conscientious convictions are in tension with medically indicated procedures. The obvious case is therapeutic abortion, but analogous cases include contraceptive sterilization and withdrawal of life support from otherwise viable patients. Physicians who give priority to their own moral and spiritual convictions over their patients’ need and desire for medically indicated care face a conflict that needs resolution [2].

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JANFU said:

JW refuse blood transfusions as it is in direct contravention of their religious beliefs. 1 Dr on duty, emergency case arrrives, need a blood transfusion, Dr is a JW, can refuse to rovide life saving transfusion. Scary.
That said, US & Canadian case law can have a court order issued to provide transfusions.
Found another tidbit, which is just as disturbing.

VM -- The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection, May 06 ... Virtual Mentor

The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection

Rebecca J. Cook, JD, JSD, and Bernard M. Dickens, LLB, LLM, PhD, LLD

Physicians’ rights to refuse to participate in medical procedures that offend their conscience may be incompatible with patients’ rights to receive lawful, medically indicated treatment. Historically, the goal of medicine has been to provide care to the sick. The World Medical Association’s modern variant of the Hippocratic Oath, The Declaration of Geneva, inspires the graduating physician to pledge that, “The health of my patient will be my first consideration” [1]. For many who enter medicine, the commitment to assist their fellow human beings and pursue a path of personal salvation through this professional calling is religiously inspired. A conflict of interest can arise if the physician’s religious or other conscientious convictions are in tension with medically indicated procedures. The obvious case is therapeutic abortion, but analogous cases include contraceptive sterilization and withdrawal of life support from otherwise viable patients. Physicians who give priority to their own moral and spiritual convictions over their patients’ need and desire for medically indicated care face a conflict that needs resolution [2].

Click to expand...

I have no idea what someone whose religious beliefs prohibit him from performing a medical treatment that he is going to have to perform would go into medicine in the first place. :shrug:

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

sangha said:

I haven't shifted anything. I have consistently pointed out that you are wrong to say this is about forcing people to do things they don't want to because other people want them to do it.

However, you are now shifting by pretending that this is a discussion of how laws are passed in a democratic system.

Click to expand...

And I will consistently point out that it is exactly about forcing people to do what they don't want to do. I can't recall you expressing that particular point in this case, but then I've only been replying to your quotes.

The physician elected not to even see this infant or her parents, unless you are reading something different, many on this thread are saying that it is wrong and that discrimination laws should apply. Again, that is their opinion and I disagree with it.

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

JANFU said:

I do not like it.
What I found frightening is that under the AMA code of ethics, a Dr. could be the only one on duty, can, dependent upon the circumstances deny a dying patient medical attention.
Take a quick read if you have the time.
Post 472
Doctors weigh morals, ethics in decisions on refusing services - amednews.com

Take, for example, the familiar religious prohibition on blood transfusions, a critical part of the morality of Jehovah's Witnesses. While we are generally used to thinking of Witnesses who refuse blood as patients, it is less well-known that Jehovah's Witness doctors are prohibited from administering transfusions, even to patients who are non-Witnesses, and even if the blood is needed to save the patient's life.

To my knowledge, no one defends a Jehovah's Witness doctor's right to refuse, on the basis of conscience, to administer blood to an exsanguinating non-Witness patient. Among the Witness doctors I have questioned, the consensus is to avoid being alone and on duty in any setting where patients needing transfusions might present. If necessary, they would summon another health care professional to do the procedure.

Click to expand...

I guess I can't understand why a person's whose religion is against many medical procedures would want to be a doctor. Perhaps, they should be a doctor for their own small community of religious people and NOT for an emergency room where tons of different people come everyday. They should be segregated from working in certain places serving the public rather than the public and/or public's care having to be segregated. At the end of the day they are just coming for medical care not to be judged or deemed worthy of service.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

I disagree. If I buy a ticket I expect that my ticket gets me the same privilege as anyone else who bought the ticket. I don't think anyone had more right to seats in the front of the bus than she did. By the same token, I also don't believe that she had more right to a seat in the front than anyone else either.

Click to expand...

I suppose since she was taking public transport you can make the case that she was owed equal treatment, but even then being told to sit in the back of the bus is not actually a harm.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

I have no idea what someone whose religious beliefs prohibit him from performing a medical treatment that he is going to have to perform would go into medicine in the first place. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Abortion- end of life, turning off the equipment. I can see that. But the child was refused care due to her parents being gay. 6 day old kid. Does the Dr ask her patients about sexual orientation- does her circle of friends include gays, of the later and she has gay friends, puts the kibosh to her religious belief reason.
Problems I see, and I just getting acquainted with the topic.

VM -- The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection, May 06 ... Virtual Mentor

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:

What was the harm to Rosa Parks?

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

She wasn't being treated equally. She was being ordered to move to a section of the bus against her wishes.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Okay, so you think Rosa Parks wasn't treated unfairly? I'd like to understand your point.

Click to expand...

Of course she was treated unfairly, unequally. But more importantly the courts agreed.

Did the courts find that there was injustice in the way that Rosa parks was treated? Unfairly? In equally. Yes. And there are direct parallels in the OP incident:

Lursa said:

But there were other seats, right? There were other doctors at the medical center.

Her wishes didnt matter. Neither did the lesbian couple's wishes.

THere were other seats....what was the harm? There were other doctors, what was the harm?

The application of 'equality' had to be established here, for this incident with RP, by the courts. Before that, she was just being asked to take another seat.

And as has been written many times, that is what will now be examined by the courts regarding the incident of the doctor telling the parents to take their baby down the hall to another doctor. The broader recognition of a harmful (to society) pattern.

I can rely on my signature below, in green.

Click to expand...

You kept claiming that there was no harm done to the baby (it was harm to the parents, not the baby). We said that it was a demonstration of a larger potential harmful pattern. Just like with Rosa Parks. You just said she was harmed by being treated unequally. What was 'unequal' about how Rosa Parks was treated if there were other seats on the bus?

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Declan said:

There is evidence to suggest that girls perform better in certain academic subjects if they are put into classrooms with only other girls. Not allowing the girls to be treated like they are "2nd class" by allowing them to be segregated at school harms society.

Click to expand...

LOL yeah? Actually it is treating them like 2nd class citizens....because they've been taught that girls arent as smart in some subject areas by society and not prepped earlier in their lives to do so. That separation is actually to repair that damage. And it's not permanent throughout the school system or all grades.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:

Of course she was treated unfairly, unequally. But more importantly the courts agreed.

Did the courts find that there was injustice in the way that Rosa parks was treated? Unfairly? In equally. Yes. And there are direct parallels in the OP incident:



You kept claiming that there was no harm done to the baby (it was harm to the parents, not the baby). We said that it was a demonstration of a larger potential harmful pattern. Just like with Rosa Parks. You just said she was harmed by being treated unequally. What was 'unequal' about how Rosa Parks was treated if there were other seats on the bus?

Click to expand...

If you want to pretend that this story is somehow parallel to the plight of black people before the 1960s, please do so without me, Lursa. You're making a martyr out of a baby who saw Dr. Y for her wellness check instead of Dr. X. That's ridiculous and way too dramatic for me.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

AliHajiSheik said:

And I will consistently point out that it is exactly about forcing people to do what they don't want to do. I can't recall you expressing that particular point in this case, but then I've only been replying to your quotes.

The physician elected not to even see this infant or her parents, unless you are reading something different, many on this thread are saying that it is wrong and that discrimination laws should apply. Again, that is their opinion and I disagree with it.

Click to expand...

And as the Law is now, the Dr has that right. Hope you never need a transfusion and the only Dr on duty is a JW, as you ain't gonna get that life saving transfusion. You die.
Do you agree with that Drs. right to refuse life saving medical care?

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:

LOL yeah? Actually it is treating them like 2nd class citizens....because they've been taught that girls arent as smart in some subject areas by society and not prepped earlier in their lives to do so. That separation is actually to repair that damage. And it's not permanent throughout the school system or all grades.

Click to expand...

Neither is saying no lesbian babies permanent throughout the healthcare system.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

If you want to pretend that this story is somehow parallel to the plight of black people before the 1960s, please do so without me, Lursa. You're making a martyr out of a baby who saw Dr. Y for her wellness check instead of Dr. X. That's ridiculous and way too dramatic for me.

Click to expand...

Ah...so you tried to get me to support RP pretending that it was relevant? And now that I've proven it was, you want to deny it?

Sorry my arguments are inconvenient for you. You just admitted the parallel that you clearly wrote out, in bold, and that I connected...now doesnt work for you.

LMAO. Yeah, we'll just stick with my signature below, in green. Your words are there too....I made sure to keep it all bold.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JANFU said:

Abortion- end of life, turning off the equipment. I can see that. But the child was refused care due to her parents being gay. 6 day old kid. Does the Dr ask her patients about sexual orientation- does her circle of friends include gays, of the later and she has gay friends, puts the kibosh to her religious belief reason.
Problems I see, and I just getting acquainted with the topic.

VM -- The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection, May 06 ... Virtual Mentor

Click to expand...

The child got care that day. As far as what friends the doctor has, I assume those are rhetorical musings and I'm not sure why they're in a post that you are making with my post quoted in it. I don't know about her friends and really wouldn't care about what friends a doctor in Michigan has.

Abortion? Turning off equipment? Not sure what they have to do with what I posted. I know quite a few pro-life doctors. None of them perform abortions. They aren't in that field. Turning off equipment I didn't think was medical care. And is there a crisis in this country that involve doctors refusing to turn off equipment? I wasn't aware of one.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Declan said:

Neither is saying no lesbian babies permanent throughout the healthcare system.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Thanks for playing.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:

That makes no sense. Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

Neither does saying all segregation is bad. You are welcome. I always enjoy proving people inadequate for their assertions.