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

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:

And once again, no medical services were withheld. This is a pediatric GROUP.

Click to expand...

That point has been made and addressed about 20 times now.

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

I believe the standard should rely upon effect. Does the objection prevent reasonable access to that service? In this case, different doctor, same access to services. The one doctor's objection had absolutely no impact on the availability of medical services.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

That point has been made and addressed about 20 times now.

Click to expand...

Yep, as was yours. You still don't seem to be getting it though.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

You seem incapable of distinguishing between 1) not approving of their lifestyle, and 2) discriminating against them (refusing to provide medical services to them) because of their lifestyle.

It's an obvious distinction, so it's a mystery why you keep missing this point.



I've addressed this and you obviously didn't care enough to pay attention to my answers the first time, so I won't address it again.

Click to expand...

Now you're back to saying the problem is the doctor not approving of their lifestyle. The last post the problem was the doctor didn't have the nerve to tell them to their faces that she didn't approve. Pick a gripe, please.

By the way, the baby got medical services that day, or did you forget?

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

clownboy said:

I believe the standard should rely upon effect. Does the objection prevent reasonable access to that service? In this case, different doctor, same access to services. The one doctor's objection had absolutely no impact on the availability of medical services.

Click to expand...

But the problem is codifying what is a subjective standard. Where do you draw a line? What if the next group was out of network and cost her $20 extra per visit? Wasn't covered at all, so $500 extra per visit? Was 5 miles away? 50 miles away? 100 miles away? Does the patient need care that day? That moment? That week? There are a thousand different ways the couple could be harmed - in this case the harm was minor, trivial even. And laws would recognize cases where the harm was catastrophic - the baby died - but there are an infinite number of situations in between.

It's why with race, the law settled on an objective standard - open to the public, serve the public without regard to race. Period. I don't see any problem with that standard. The "rights" we're limiting are rights to discriminate - I'm actually OK with that. It seems to me an acceptable trade-off. Business owners that open their doors to the public and the benefits of that arrangement agree to restrictions on the right to pick and choose who they will and will not serve. If those restrictions are too onerous, then open a private club and you can pick and choose who you serve.

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

JasperL said:

But the problem is codifying what is a subjective standard. Where do you draw a line? What if the next group was out of network and cost her $20 extra per visit? Wasn't covered at all, so $500 extra per visit? Was 5 miles away? 50 miles away? 100 miles away? Does the patient need care that day? That moment? That week? There are a thousand different ways the couple could be harmed - in this case the harm was minor, trivial even. And laws would recognize cases where the harm was catastrophic - the baby died - but there are an infinite number of situations in between.

It's why with race, the law settled on an objective standard - open to the public, serve the public without regard to race. Period. I don't see any problem with that standard. The "rights" we're limiting are rights to discriminate - I'm actually OK with that. It seems to me an acceptable trade-off. Business owners that open their doors to the public and the benefits of that arrangement agree to restrictions on the right to pick and choose who they will and will not serve. If those restrictions are too onerous, then open a private club and you can pick and choose who you serve.

Click to expand...

Most of the questions you pose are already answered by law. As to effect, it's not subjective at all. However, dealing with thought crimes is. Either the person has access to the medical service or they don't. In this case there was NO effect whatsoever.

And as a side note, the couple's reaction is idiotic. They switched to another pediatric GROUP. It could very well be there is a doctor in the new group that holds the same beliefs as the doctor they are trying to flee.

It's like going to a bakery for a wedding cake for your "gay" wedding. One baker there says, "I don't agree with your lifestyle so I won't bake your cake, but the other fellow who bakes here has no problem with it so he will". You have NOT been refused service.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

Now you're back to saying the problem is the doctor not approving of their lifestyle. The last post the problem was the doctor didn't have the nerve to tell them to their faces that she didn't approve. Pick a gripe, please.

Click to expand...

I really do not understand why you engage in a debate, but are completely unwilling to even acknowledge arguments others make. You quoted me, ignored that response, and made the same point again. So I'll quote myself:

"You seem incapable of distinguishing between 1) not approving of their lifestyle, and 2) discriminating against them (refusing to provide medical services to them) because of their lifestyle.

It's an obvious distinction, so it's a mystery why you keep missing this point."

Click to expand...

If you'd care to address that, we can move forward. Otherwise, there is no point 'debating' with you.

By the way, the baby got medical services that day, or did you forget?

Click to expand...

That point has been made and addressed about 20 times. So why would I respond to this point, again? If you want to read a response to someone else, try mine to clownboy nearby.

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

clownboy said:

Most of the questions you pose are already answered by law. As to effect, it's not subjective at all. However, dealing with thought crimes is. Either the person has access to the medical service or they don't. In this case there was NO effect whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I just outlined several examples of why "access" is a subjective standard - in or out of network, 5 miles away, 100 miles away, etc. You could address those if you want...

And as a side note, the couple's reaction is idiotic. They switched to another pediatric GROUP. It could very well be there is a doctor in the new group that holds the same beliefs as the doctor they are trying to flee.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the beliefs of an unknown doctor are irrelevant - the relevant question is whether the other group DISCRIMINATES against gay women.

It's like going to a bakery for a wedding cake for your "gay" wedding. One baker there says, "I don't agree with your lifestyle so I won't bake your cake, but the other fellow who bakes here has no problem with it so he will". You have NOT been refused service.

Click to expand...

Yes you were refused service. That in that case you could find someone else who agreed to provide service is nice, but doesn't affect that fact that the first bakery discriminated against you based on your sexual orientation.

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

clownboy said:

Most of the questions you pose are already answered by law. As to effect, it's not subjective at all. However, dealing with thought crimes is. Either the person has access to the medical service or they don't. In this case there was NO effect whatsoever.

And as a side note, the couple's reaction is idiotic. They switched to another pediatric GROUP. It could very well be there is a doctor in the new group that holds the same beliefs as the doctor they are trying to flee.

It's like going to a bakery for a wedding cake for your "gay" wedding. One baker there says, "I don't agree with your lifestyle so I won't bake your cake, but the other fellow who bakes here has no problem with it so he will". You have NOT been refused service.

Click to expand...

What's idiotic is the assumption that just because a person is part of a pediatric "group" that they don't have their own normal doctor. Even with most pediatric groups, parents get a doctor named as their doctor. While it is possible that that doctor may ask a patient to see someone else because they are unavailable on a specific day or at a specific time, the patient is free to wait to see their doctor at a different date or time, if their doctor is still with the group (I've actually had my doctor leave the group and was asked about getting a different doctor as my PCM). Usually, a doctor will try to see his/her patients and not defer them to other doctors even within the group.

And yes it is possible that there is a doctor in the other group that refuses to see them, but it is not likely that doctor will be their doctor (especially if they discuss the situation with their doctor to begin with, which is quite likely given what happened to them with this doctor).

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

JasperL said:

I just outlined several examples of why "access" is a subjective standard - in or out of network, 5 miles away, 100 miles away, etc. You could address those if you want...

Click to expand...

Patients decide that for themselves in choosing what sort of insurance coverage they want and where they choose to live.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

I really do not understand why you engage in a debate, but are completely unwilling to even acknowledge arguments others make. You quoted me, ignored that response, and made the same point again. So I'll quote myself:



If you'd care to address that, we can move forward. Otherwise, there is no point 'debating' with you.



That point has been made and addressed about 20 times. So why would I respond to this point, again? If you want to read a response to someone else, try mine to clownboy nearby.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting the idea that I don't understand the difference between her not approving of their lifestyle and her not wanting to be their baby's doctor? That isn't exactly an epiphany or something that you're having. She doesn't approve of them being gay. Her choice. She didn't want to be their baby's doctor so she asked her partner to do it. Wow. Big tragedy.

Keep in mind that you were posting about her not coming to face them, and her not having the courage to explain why she didn't want to be their doctor, which, by the way, has nothing to do with what you're now posting about.

The sole reason the baby's parents took her to the doctor's office on that day was to get a wellness check. And she got it. The end.

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

roguenuke said:

What's idiotic is the assumption that just because a person is part of a pediatric "group" that they don't have their own normal doctor. Even with most pediatric groups, parents get a doctor named as their doctor. While it is possible that that doctor may ask a patient to see someone else because they are unavailable on a specific day or at a specific time, the patient is free to wait to see their doctor at a different date or time, if their doctor is still with the group (I've actually had my doctor leave the group and was asked about getting a different doctor as my PCM). Usually, a doctor will try to see his/her patients and not defer them to other doctors even within the group.

And yes it is possible that there is a doctor in the other group that refuses to see them, but it is not likely that doctor will be their doctor (especially if they discuss the situation with their doctor to begin with, which is quite likely given what happened to them with this doctor).

Click to expand...

Idiotic assumption? Interesting. You just made statements about what happens at "most pediatric groups". Are you speaking from personal experience with "most pediatric groups"? Because Aunt Spiker who also has children had a completely different experience with her kids' pediatric group, and I have had the same experience as she has. I would like to believe I get to dictate which doctor sees my kids, but I don't.

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

JasperL said:

I just outlined several examples of why "access" is a subjective standard - in or out of network, 5 miles away, 100 miles away, etc. You could address those if you want...

Click to expand...

Actually no, they are covered already. It's the reasonable man standard. But again, the point you ignore is that no medical service or access to medical service was denied in this case.

JasperL said:

Perhaps, but the beliefs of an unknown doctor are irrelevant - the relevant question is whether the other group DISCRIMINATES against gay women.

Click to expand...

Where are you coming up with that? The first group did not discriminate against gay women. Again, ONE doctor in the group had objections to their lifestyle, another doctor from the same group gave them service and offered to do so going forward.

JasperL said:

Yes you were refused service. That in that case you could find someone else who agreed to provide service is nice, but doesn't affect that fact that the first bakery discriminated against you based on your sexual orientation.

Click to expand...

You failed to read and/or understand the post you responded to. Another baker at the same bakery (you know, like another doctor in the same group) was willing to bake the cake. No refusal of service.

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

roguenuke said:

What's idiotic is the assumption that just because a person is part of a pediatric "group" that they don't have their own normal doctor. Even with most pediatric groups, parents get a doctor named as their doctor. While it is possible that that doctor may ask a patient to see someone else because they are unavailable on a specific day or at a specific time, the patient is free to wait to see their doctor at a different date or time, if their doctor is still with the group (I've actually had my doctor leave the group and was asked about getting a different doctor as my PCM). Usually, a doctor will try to see his/her patients and not defer them to other doctors even within the group.

Click to expand...

The patient doesn't belong to the group, the doctors do. I've had a doctor refer me to different doctors because I refused to follow his advice and quit smoking.

roguenuke said:

And yes it is possible that there is a doctor in the other group that refuses to see them, but it is not likely that doctor will be their doctor (especially if they discuss the situation with their doctor to begin with, which is quite likely given what happened to them with this doctor).

Click to expand...

No, in all probability, once the new group heard the story they assigned her a doctor from the group that had no objection. You know, just as the first group did.

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

Taylor said:

Patients decide that for themselves in choosing what sort of insurance coverage they want and where they choose to live.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't agree that before they do that they need to poll their physician network to see which ones discriminate against gays.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

Where are you getting the idea that I don't understand the difference between her not approving of their lifestyle and her not wanting to be their baby's doctor? That isn't exactly an epiphany or something that you're having. She doesn't approve of them being gay. Her choice. She didn't want to be their baby's doctor so she asked her partner to do it. Wow. Big tragedy.

Click to expand...

Like I said earlier - your point is clear enough: Discrimination? BFD as long as in that particular case no harm done. What some of us have been discussing are the bounds - when does the harm from discrimination rise to a level in which the law should prohibit it. You're not interested in that debate so keep making the same point 50 times that the baby got treated. We all know that and have repeatedly acknowledged it. There is a principle involved that goes beyond THIS CASE. If you can't see it or won't see it, that's your choice, but I can't imagine what's interesting about this debate to you if that's how you feel.

So we'll agree to disagree.

Keep in mind that you were posting about her not coming to face them, and her not having the courage to explain why she didn't want to be their doctor, which, by the way, has nothing to do with what you're now posting about.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that we've discussed many things on this thread. That is ONE part of it that I've discussed in the past two days. You chose to respond to part of one comment, and that part had to do with her refusal to communicate her bigotry to the parents. You were fine with her approach and I disagreed. But there was more in that comment and in this thread beyond that - most notably the act of discriminating itself. I don't recall limiting myself to only part of the debate or only part of that doctor's actions that day.

The sole reason the baby's parents took her to the doctor's office on that day was to get a wellness check. And she got it. The end.

Click to expand...

Again, that point's been made and addressed. If you think that's the end of the relevant discussion, that's your opinion. Many of us don't share that opinion. We can agree to disagree on this. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by limiting the debate. If you don't want to discuss the case beyond the facts and circumstances of this incident, then don't.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Unfortunately, this case makes a terrible jumping off point for the discussion many want to have. Where do a physician's personal rights end where it comes to providing medical care?

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

Like I said earlier - your point is clear enough: Discrimination? BFD as long as in that particular case no harm done. What some of us have been discussing are the bounds - when does the harm from discrimination rise to a level in which the law should prohibit it. You're not interested in that debate so keep making the same point 50 times that the baby got treated. We all know that and have repeatedly acknowledged it. There is a principle involved that goes beyond THIS CASE. If you can't see it or won't see it, that's your choice, but I can't imagine what's interesting about this debate to you if that's how you feel.

So we'll agree to disagree.



Keep in mind that we've discussed many things on this thread. That is ONE part of it that I've discussed in the past two days. You chose to respond to part of one comment, and that part had to do with her refusal to communicate her bigotry to the parents. You were fine with her approach and I disagreed. But there was more in that comment and in this thread beyond that - most notably the act of discriminating itself. I don't recall limiting myself to only part of the debate or only part of that doctor's actions that day.



Again, that point's been made and addressed. If you think that's the end of the relevant discussion, that's your opinion. Many of us don't share that opinion. We can agree to disagree on this. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by limiting the debate. If you don't want to discuss the case beyond the facts and circumstances of this incident, then don't.

Click to expand...

Discrimination implies denying someone of something that is offered to others, or excluding them in participation of something that others participate in. What were the parents denied? What were they excluded from doing that the hetero parents got at the same practice on the same day?

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

JasperL said:

Of course I wouldn't be satisfied. Someone showing up to eat at a restaurant shouldn't have to wonder whether or not the owner will serve them based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If the restaurant is open to the public, and enjoys public benefits like police, roads, fire protection, protection of the court system to enforce contracts, etc. then they should be required to serve all the public.

Of if they have standards - no shirt, no shoes, dinner jacket, no drunks, etc. - then apply those standards without regard to race, etc.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not the same as someone race or gender, I wish people would stop with that notion. And, how can someone tell someone's sexual orientation unless they're flaunting it? If a restaurant or any public meeting place wishes to exclude certain characters, yes, indeed they should be allowed to. The market will sort itself out, especially since most homophiles keep telling us that the majority of American's actively support gay rights.

So, JasperL, in your opinion there is no compromise? Is it also safe to say that you could not envision a situation where someone who opposes homosexuality would NOT be a bigot?


Tim-

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

tres borrachos said:

Idiotic assumption? Interesting. You just made statements about what happens at "most pediatric groups". Are you speaking from personal experience with "most pediatric groups"? Because Aunt Spiker who also has children had a completely different experience with her kids' pediatric group, and I have had the same experience as she has. I would like to believe I get to dictate which doctor sees my kids, but I don't.

Click to expand...

So far, the four different pediatrician groups I've been in have worked the way I described. Now, granted, two of them were military based groups, but we still had a PCM, primary care manager or primary doctor, assigned to me and my children (I generally choose family practices rather than strictly pediatricians, if I can). If our PCM was not available, then we would see another doctor (they would ask if we wanted to see someone else or reschedule, or if I was trying to schedule an appointment for the same day, I would be asked if it was okay to see someone else). My sons have always had a primary doctor within a family care or pediatric group. They saw their primary doctor most of the time, as did I. My sons and I have the same doctor, but can see one of the others in the group. The same was true with my orthopedic doctor. He was in a group but I saw him, made appointments with him to check out my knee.

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

clownboy said:

The patient doesn't belong to the group, the doctors do. I've had a doctor refer me to different doctors because I refused to follow his advice and quit smoking.

No, in all probability, once the new group heard the story they assigned her a doctor from the group that had no objection. You know, just as the first group did.

Click to expand...

No, that is not how it works, at least not for all groups. You can choose your doctor within many groups if you wish. At least that has been my experience. And these parents spoke directly with the doctor that ended up refusing to see them prior to the baby being born.

The first "group" made no such decision. The "substitute" doctor was asked by their original doctor to do the appointment because of her objections, basically as a favor. There was no "group meeting" where they decided together to have this other doctor do the baby's well checkup.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

paddymcdougall said:

If you are going to continue to mis-read what I type, there is no use in continuing to discuss things with you.

Click to expand...

Earlier in the thread, tb said she wouldn't want to go to a doctor that didn't want to treat her

Now she's says she doesn't care what the doctor thinks of her.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

sangha said:

Earlier in the thread, tb said she wouldn't want to go to a doctor that didn't want to treat her

Now she's says she doesn't care what the doctor thinks of her.

Click to expand...

That is what happens to people who have noting but double talk. Nothing intelligent or rational just whatever suits their ignorant agenda.

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

roguenuke said:

No, that is not how it works, at least not for all groups. You can choose your doctor within many groups if you wish. At least that has been my experience. And these parents spoke directly with the doctor that ended up refusing to see them prior to the baby being born.

The first "group" made no such decision. The "substitute" doctor was asked by their original doctor to do the appointment because of her objections, basically as a favor. There was no "group meeting" where they decided together to have this other doctor do the baby's well checkup.

Click to expand...

This is a pediatric group, it is not a general HMO group. The physicians in this group have a common specialty. The sort of group you are talking about has varied specialties but network their referrals within the group. Yes, they do have "group meetings" and share the same office and scheduling staff.

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

clownboy said:

This is a pediatric group, it is not a general HMO group. The physicians in this group have a common specialty. The sort of group you are talking about has varied specialties but network their referrals within the group. Yes, they do have "group meetings" and share the same office and scheduling staff.

Click to expand...

You are really confusing what I am saying.

First, the groups I have been going to are just like the group this doctor was a part of, a group of doctor that basically share the building, expenses, staff, etc., but still have their own patients. This is evidenced by the fact that the parents spoke with this doctor specifically in a prenatal appointment and she agreed to take their child as her patient. She wasn't making this decision for the group.

Second, I never said they didn't have group meetings, only that they did not have a specific group meeting to decide to send the child of these parents to see another doctor because this doctor had religious objections. Read the story. The substitute doctor told them their doctor was refusing to see them because she had religious issues with having a patient with lesbian mothers, and she asked the other doctor to do take the appointment for her. I was saying that this specific decision, to have the child have that first appointment done by a different doctor was not decided on in some "group doctor meeting". It was decided between just the two doctors.

Last, the doctors I had were all within a common specialty. My doctor is in a general practice specialty with a group of other doctors that all work in general practice. I have the same doctor as my sons but at least for one appointment, one of my sons saw a different doctor because ours wasn't available. Not a big deal to us. The same was true within the military system. In fact, the first year I had dependents, I looked through a book of doctors they had and picked one. There was no real need to do this though because they were mostly general practice doctors. We were assigned a doctor in San Diego within the clinic that saw people for general checkups or non-emergency complaints. My doctor told me beforehand if he was going on vacation and that if we needed to see someone, other doctors in the clinic had his patients for the couple of weeks he would be gone.