Pediatrician refuses to care for lesbians' baby

[nikolai_42]

Pediatrician Refuses Care for Baby of Lesbians

So is this different than the whole "wedding" cake issue for same-sex couples? My take is that it is different - a pediatrician cares for a child who finds itself in the situation it's in through no choice of its own. This is about caring for the child, not the guardians of the child. Early Christians would do something similar when they would go to the cliffs where the Romans would leave babies they didn't want - and take them in themselves. They weren't validating the choice to abandon a baby, but doing what they could for it.

When the bible says that the rain falls on the just and the unjust, it means God provides for everyone to some degree. This wouldn't be justifying a homosexual couple nearly the same way providing a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony would.

But that's just my take. Even this doctor apologized to the couple and said that she felt she couldn't have any meaningful relationship with them because of their differences. Is that a valid reason not to treat a child?

I don't see this as an issue of choice. I believe the doctor should have the right to do what she did. But was she right in doing so?

Are there other factors I'm not taking into consideration?

 

[GFR7]

I think you are correct in that it is NOT the same as a wedding cake. Can a doctor refuse to treat a prostitute's baby? Or an addict's? Or even the prostitute or addict themselves? Physicians are supposed to be neutral. Maybe if it is just for check-ups and not in any emergency, but still.......

 

[Granite]

What happened to "do no harm"?

 

[resodko]

in a private practice? she should be free to choose her client base as she wishes - include or exclude fags, prostitutes, blacks - whatever strikes her fancy


in the er?

nope

 

[bybee]

Pediatrician Refuses Care for Baby of Lesbians

So is this different than the whole "wedding" cake issue for same-sex couples? My take is that it is different - a pediatrician cares for a child who finds itself in the situation it's in through no choice of its own. This is about caring for the child, not the guardians of the child. Early Christians would do something similar when they would go to the cliffs where the Romans would leave babies they didn't want - and take them in themselves. They weren't validating the choice to abandon a baby, but doing what they could for it.

When the bible says that the rain falls on the just and the unjust, it means God provides for everyone to some degree. This wouldn't be justifying a homosexual couple nearly the same way providing a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony would.

But that's just my take. Even this doctor apologized to the couple and said that she felt she couldn't have any meaningful relationship with them because of their differences. Is that a valid reason not to treat a child?

I don't see this as an issue of choice. I believe the doctor should have the right to do what she did. But was she right in doing so?

Are there other factors I'm not taking into consideration?

The physician takes an oath to "Do no harm". I feel that the patient in front of you has need of you and your skills.
To make judgments on who is worthy of one's care is a very slippery slope.

 

[nikolai_42]

The physician takes an oath to "Do no harm". I feel that the patient in front of you has need of you and your skills.
To make judgments on who is worthy of one's care is a very slippery slope.

Generally, I would agree with you. But also consider (and this may have been a factor here) that the earnest physician will know his or her limitations. If they realize that their emotions or convictions (be they right or wrong) will get in the way of providing the best quality care that they can, then don't they have a duty to respond accordingly? To be forced to do something like this in violation of someone's convictions is possibly going to create great dilemmas for the physician and, in the end, put the health of the patient at risk.

But I don't see this as an issue that tends to promote the homosexual's "lifestyle". In fact, I would think a homosexual would be more comfortable with a doctor that is sympathetic to their way of life.

 

[nikolai_42]

in a private practice? she should be free to choose her client base as she wishes - include or exclude fags, prostitutes, blacks - whatever strikes her fancy


in the er?

nope

I would agree...but the real question I'm asking about this private practice isn't so much the legal issue, but the moral one. Were the physician's convictions misplaced (at best)? Or were they justified?

 

[resodko]

I would agree...but the real question I'm asking about this private practice isn't so much the legal issue, but the moral one. Were the physician's convictions misplaced (at best)? Or were they justified?

if i were in her position, i would be concerned that my relationship with the family would be affected by the knowledge that they are perverts


many health care professionals avoid working in prison settings for the same reason

 

[shagster01]

Isn't the Republican stance, "don't force me to help people. I'll help them on my own terms. " That's what they say about their own money and services.

I would agree though. People should not be forced to help others. Karma will play out.

 

[Granite]

Isn't the Republican stance, "don't force me to help people. I'll help them on my own terms. " That's what they say about their own money and services.

I would agree though. People should not be forced to help others. Karma will play out.

So if a doctor refused to treat someone bleeding from the head your only answer would be "karma."

Top notch.:bang:

 

[Rusha]

Pediatrician Refuses Care for Baby of Lesbians

So is this different than the whole "wedding" cake issue for same-sex couples? My take is that it is different - a pediatrician cares for a child who finds itself in the situation it's in through no choice of its own. This is about caring for the child, not the guardians of the child. Early Christians would do something similar when they would go to the cliffs where the Romans would leave babies they didn't want - and take them in themselves. They weren't validating the choice to abandon a baby, but doing what they could for it.

When the bible says that the rain falls on the just and the unjust, it means God provides for everyone to some degree. This wouldn't be justifying a homosexual couple nearly the same way providing a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony would.

But that's just my take. Even this doctor apologized to the couple and said that she felt she couldn't have any meaningful relationship with them because of their differences. Is that a valid reason not to treat a child?

I don't see this as an issue of choice. I believe the doctor should have the right to do what she did. But was she right in doing so?

Are there other factors I'm not taking into consideration?

IF it was a private practice rather than an ER (non emergency situation), I agree, she has the *right*. However, that doesn't mean she was "right" in her decision. Obviously she is more dedicated to hating the parents than she is to taking care of this innocent child.

 

[shagster01]

So if a doctor refused to treat someone bleeding from the head your only answer would be "karma."

Top notch.:bang:

Well, that isn't how our society is set up. My answer would be, "lawsuit coming."

But I would certainly support a free market system if it was presented.

 

[nikolai_42]

So if a doctor refused to treat someone bleeding from the head your only answer would be "karma."

Top notch.:bang:

The implied situation is private practice only. The ER is certainly a different kettle of fish. I suppose the debate over HIV and homosexual men (they are still disproportionately infected by far as compared to their percentage of the population) could raise a question of blood-borne infection - but that's a different topic.

 

[shagster01]

IF it was a private practice rather than an ER (non emergency situation), I agree, she has the *right*. However, that doesn't mean she was "right" in her decision. Obviously she is more dedicated to hating the parents than she is to taking care of this innocent child.

This is true. Read my signature on this.

However, I don't think forcing people to do what's right is right either. Any decent parent who uses this pediatrician should go find a different one and put this office out of business.

 

[nikolai_42]

IF it was a private practice rather than an ER (non emergency situation), I agree, she has the *right*. However, that doesn't mean she was "right" in her decision. Obviously she is more dedicated to hating the parents than she is to taking care of this innocent child.

Yes. Private Practice only. And I would agree that she has the right but wasn't necessarily right in doing what she did. But the reasoning that she is doing it out of hate is, at best, one dimensional. By that I mean that that is simply one possible reason and the physician has to take into consideration a whole host of factors that make personal feelings just one of many matters that need to be addressed. The hatred reason is simply the most emotionally charged (which goes right along with the whole demanding of rights that is the first thing people seem to go to in these situations - on both sides). If you were a doctor and were emotionally or spiritually very conflicted about something, would it be right of you to try and push through in spite of your feelings? I don't know if that can be answered universally. What other factors are important here?

 

[GFR7]

The fact that she says this makes it her right and not morally a bad thing. (quote from article below).
Only in emergencies where there is no long-term relationship must physicians be completely neutral. We know there are physicians who won't take smokers or drinkers as patients.

“After much prayer following your prenatal (visit), I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients.”

 

[nikolai_42]

The fact that she says this makes it her right and not morally a bad thing. (quote from article below).
Only in emergencies where there is no long-term relationship must physicians be completely neutral. We know there are physicians who won't take smokers or drinkers as patients.

So the question was just raised...if the ONLY factor she considered was whether she agreed with homosexuality or not - would this be the right (morally) decision?

 

[shagster01]

So the question was just raised...if the ONLY factor she considered was whether she agreed with homosexuality or not - would this be the right (morally) decision?

It doesn't matter. It's her decision to make, right or wrong.

I'm not interested in judging whether other people's actions are "right." It's not my place.

 

[nikolai_42]

It doesn't matter. It's her decision to make, right or wrong.

I'm not interested in judging whether other people's actions are "right." It's not my place.

But that was the question. She certainly has a legal right (or else justice isn't blind), but are there circumstances where that right shouldn't apply? If you were sick and some doctor didn't like you (for whatever reason) and refused to see you in private practice, would you think that right? Would you like it? Further, what if you were in a remote location and they were the only doctor around for 100 miles?

 

[shagster01]

But that was the question. She certainly has a legal right (or else justice isn't blind), but are there circumstances where that right shouldn't apply? If you were sick and some doctor didn't like you (for whatever reason) and refused to see you in private practice, would you think that right? Would you like it? Further, what if you were in a remote location and they were the only doctor around for 100 miles?

No I would not like it. But I don't think everything I do not like should be illegal either.

If no other doctor was within 100 miles, I'd accept my fate, or move.