Pediatrician refuses to care for lesbians' baby

[Delmar]

Doesn't an obese person flaunt their gluttony?

I never flaunted my obesity, but I couldn't really hide it either. Nor has any doctor denied me services because of it. Though most let me know that their ability to help me was limited by it. It is also a fact that every doctor I have ever been to, before I started to get a handle on my situation, made it very clear to me that they did not approve of my lifestyle.

 

[GFR7]

I never flaunted my obesity, but I couldn't really hide it either. Nor has any doctor denied me services because of it. Though most let me know that their ability to help me was limited by it. It is also a fact that every doctor I have ever been to, before I started to get a handle on my situation, made it very clear to me that they did not approve of my lifestyle.

It indicated that they believed you could change . However your picture reminds me of a favorite professor and does not look obese, but pleasantly robust.

 

[Eeset]

I didn't watch the video.
The article does not mention any of what you claim.

The video was imbedded in the article. How did you miss it? In any case it makes those claims, not me.

 

[Truster]

I understand . And yet, the bus driver or the shop clerk you can at least dismiss from your imaginings: This physician would see the lesbians on a routine basis. She was right to remove herself for the good of their child.

''Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?''

 

[Truster]

''Cast not they pearls before swine'' is a verse the Doctor should have prayed about.

 

[GFR7]

''Cast not they pearls before swine'' is a verse the Doctor should have prayed about.

It may have been what decided her.

I think what was likely most surprising to the lesbian couple is that a doctor who embraced holistic and alternative medicine would not be a liberal. In my experience , most of them are and accept alternative lifestyles.

 

[Granite]

I simply don't get what the Dr is thinking.

Oh, but I sure do. Come on, Delmar, work with me--you can't honestly say what this doctor's done totally surprises you.

"Whatever you do to the least of these, you've done to me" seems to have skipped the not-so-good doctor's mind while "Suffer the little children" was something she misunderstood.

 

[bybee]

Oh, but I sure do. Come on, Delmar, work with me--you can't honestly say what this doctor's done totally surprises you.

"Whatever you do to the least of these, you've done to me" seems to have skipped the not-so-good doctor's mind while "Suffer the little children" was something she misunderstood.

I believe she ought to be hauled before an ethics committee.
A doctor is not the judge of a patients worth. The doctor is to do no harm, heal wounded, sustain quality of life to the best of his/her ability.

 

[Puppet]

My father in law almost didn't come to the funeral cause a woman pastor was speaking. If he was a doctor, he probably wouldn't treat her baby. The Apostles were speaking of the requirements of homosexually inside demonic ritiulals that were popular back in those days, not the common love between the non ritual same sex.

 

[resodko]

I believe she ought to be hauled before an ethics committee.
A doctor is not the judge of a patients worth. The doctor is to do no harm, heal wounded, sustain quality of life to the best of his/her ability.

one of my professors is a NP who originally worked in a local medium security prison when she was a new graduate - thought she could handle the coarseness and insanity and provide good care for the inmate population but found that she couldn't and left for med-surg work

and i, while teaching, anticipated being able to handle the chaos and insanity of teaching in the inner city and found that i couldn't

i suspect this doctor had a similar experience :idunno:


bybee - how well would you handle having to deal with a patient population made up of unrepentant wife abusers, rapists, child molesters?

 

[Rusha]

I believe she ought to be hauled before an ethics committee.
A doctor is not the judge of a patients worth. The doctor is to do no harm, heal wounded, sustain quality of life to the best of his/her ability.

:thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

I believe she ought to be hauled before an ethics committee.
A doctor is not the judge of a patients worth. The doctor is to do no harm, heal wounded, sustain quality of life to the best of his/her ability.

Agreed, though I suppose this sort of thing should be unsurprising in an age when some of those same physicians routinely end the life of infants in their mother's wombs without consequence or apparent conscience... :sigh:

 

[Granite]

Agreed, though I suppose this sort of thing should be unsurprising in an age when some of those same physicians routinely end the life of infants in their mother's wombs without consequence or apparent conscience... :sigh:

Can't say I see a through line between supporting abortion rights (at best, one can argue for the mother's welfare) and refusing to treat an infant because of their parents (at best, a self-serving stunt born of self-righteousness). The very same woman who's refused to help this child would be expected to oppose the right of her lesbian mother to both bear that same child, or terminate that child. With friends like these...

The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel, indeed. Both sides could use that one.

 

[resodko]

Oppo... refusing to treat an infant ...

:doh: she didn't "refuse to treat"

she refused to add the family to her client base

 

[GFR7]

If this pediatrician had refused care to this infant in an emergency room for the same reason, I would agree she should be hauled in front of a medical ethics committee.

As it was, she referred the infant to a colleague who would provide good routine and check-up care, and she admitted she did not want her misgivings to spoil the excitement of being new parents.

 

[Rusha]

Agreed, though I suppose this sort of thing should be unsurprising in an age when some of those same physicians routinely end the life of infants in their mother's wombs without consequence or apparent conscience... :sigh:

The thing is ... the *pediatrician* in question would probably claim to be prolife even though she is clearly making the statement she doesn't care about *this* baby's well being or life.

Her profession, on it's own, is one that should be making the statement "Children are my first priority".

 

[resodko]

....she referred the infant to a colleague who would provide good routine and check-up care, and she admitted she did not want her misgivings to spoil the excitement of being new parents.

good point geefer! :thumb:



now let's see what spin the board tard puts on it:

.... she is clearly making the statement she doesn't care about *this* baby's well being or life.

:mock:rusha-the-board-tard

 

[Town Heretic]

Can't say I see a through line between supporting abortion rights (at best, one can argue for the mother's welfare) and refusing to treat an infant because of their parents (at best, a self-serving stunt born of self-righteousness).

It's the same root, the "my philosophical principle trumps all" approach that subjugates what should be the primary concern of a physician.

The very same woman who's refused to help this child would be expected to oppose the right of her lesbian mother to both bear that same child, or terminate that child. With friends like these...

Indeed.

 

[GFR7]

good point geefer! :thumb:

Thnx, Res :e4e: What I cannot comprehend is how the distinction is unimportant to many posters.

"Children are my priority" still holds because she did not want her misgivings about gay parenting to compromise her care and attention. She put this child first by referring the parents to an obviously gay-friendly colleague.

Why would anyone WANT their infant treated by a conflicted doctor? If I am a meat-eater, I and my child should not see a Vegan alternative doctor because he will judge my lifestyle and my feeding of hamburgers to my child.

 

[Town Heretic]

..."Children are my priority" still holds because she did not want her misgivings about gay parenting to compromise her care and attention.

A sort of pathetic admission, don't you think? The sort of excuse all but the good Samaritan would have understood.

She put this child first by referring the parents to an obviously gay-friendly colleague.

No, she put the child's welfare second to her discomfort. I've seen sniffles turn to something serious in short order. I had Jack checked out by his physician for what seemed innocuous on Friday and he was in the hospital by Monday. A referral isn't a date certain or an appointment waiting. The doctor was gambling with the health of the child to salve her own bias. That's contemptible.

Why would anyone WANT their infant treated by a conflicted doctor?

Why would anyone who didn't value the health of her patient over her own personal likes or dislikes be a doctor?