Till she conforms.
Pediatrician refuses to care for lesbians' baby
- Thread starter nikolai_42
- Start date
Till she conforms.
GFR7
New member
I wonder if she will be coerced to conform? :think: The American Medical Association/Pediatrics Association was not at all supportive of her, and said they support "diversity" .....she's kind of out on a limb, now......
She has the right to be, no one can force relationship. Its a whole different thing to choose to be involved with more than just your patient for years, vs an emergency situation.
Doctors often drop patients also when there is not a good working relationship with them.
basmonahan
New member
To go back to the original questions of the thread -
No, I suppose there isn't anything obligating a doctor to treat a child of a couple who practices a lifestyle the doctor doesn't agree with. But, if you support a doctor not treating a lesbian's couple's baby, then you shouldn't have any qualms with a doctor supporting euthanasia (something many Christians might have an issue with), right? In my opinion, a doctor is supposed to help people no matter what their creed. I'm not sure why this would even come up as a topic for us Christians, who are supposed to be merciful and helpful as Christ commanded us to be.
No, I suppose there isn't anything obligating a doctor to treat a child of a couple who practices a lifestyle the doctor doesn't agree with. But, if you support a doctor not treating a lesbian's couple's baby, then you shouldn't have any qualms with a doctor supporting euthanasia (something many Christians might have an issue with), right? In my opinion, a doctor is supposed to help people no matter what their creed. I'm not sure why this would even come up as a topic for us Christians, who are supposed to be merciful and helpful as Christ commanded us to be.
GFR7
New member
I agree, yes. I was a bit chagrined at the AMA's stance......
GFR7
New member
All of these ethical questions are very thorny. Euthanasia is more or less practiced regularly with cancer patients, under the guise of "pain management" (upping the morphine until it more or less kills them, but with kind intentions to end suffering. It's just not called 'euthanasia'). This is what I saw with my own spouse. (after medical hope was abandoned).
Indeed. Many parents might wish to trust a professional whose focus is on the health of children rather than making a mark in martyrdom on the 10:00 news.
GFR7
New member
I will admit that considering the current cultural climate, she may have alienated some people.....
That does tend to happen when a pediatrician uses a child to target the parents.
That's ... interesting. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the doctor's disdain for the parents overruled her concern for the child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Perverts
Always happy to help with your confusion Sandy.
Her concern for the child goes outside of the doctors office Sandy. That innocent child will be subjected to all kinds of psychological, spiritual and most likely physical abuse that is very common in the LGBTQueer world.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Perverts
Always happy to help with your confusion Sandy.
Her concern for the child goes outside of the doctors office Sandy. That innocent child will be subjected to all kinds of psychological, spiritual and most likely physical abuse that is very common in the LGBTQueer world.
Not hardly. She cut herself off from the child ... which is actually a good thing.
The child deserves to have a doctor who will put her patient's needs first. EOS.
She deserves every bit of backlash she gets.
Morpheus
New member
Does she turn away rude bigots? There goes the idea of "physician heal thyself"?
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, many parents would not be making themselves out to be martyrs because they encountered a professional that sent them to another because of a conflict of interest.
genuineoriginal
New member
You have it backwards.
It is the parents that are using the child to target the pediatrician.
The doctor showed her concern for the child's health by having another doctor see the child instead of allowing a conflict of interest to interfere with the child's care.
genuineoriginal
New member
She thought so as well, it is the parents that are having problems understanding this.
The doctor did put the patient's needs first.
The parents are just using the child to feed their sick need for 15 minutes of fame.
Morpheus
New member
That poor, innocent doctor. She did nothing wrong, right?
So let's say that a Christian couple found the doctor they wanted for their soon-to-be-born child, and they scheduled an appointment well in advance. And that doctor accepted the child, with her parents, as a patient. Then only days after the blessed event they took their precious child to that anticipated, scheduled first appointment. Then after being led to the exam room and waiting for their doctor's arrival they are greeted by a different doctor who told them that their doctor, a Catholic, had been praying about it and decided their child was not worthy of her services because they were protestant, but here, you deserve this doctor of my choosing. So get over it.
It would be a slap in the face to anyone, but especially new parents.
genuineoriginal
New member
She identified a conflict of interest and recused herself before it became a problem.
That is the behavior I would expect from any professional.
Sounds like you have a comprehension problem.
The doctor never said that the child was not worthy, you stupid idiot.
The doctor stated that she did not believe she could develop the kind of relationship with the family that she believes is needed for her to provide the best care for the child.
The parents are the problem, the child was not a problem.