Doctors' Religious Rights? [Archive]

CalBoy

Aug 20, 2008, 09:54 PM

I meant to post this a couple days ago, but with work and such, I forgot:

Doctors can't use bias to deny gays treatment

California doctors who have religious objections to gays and lesbians must nevertheless treat them the same as any other patient or find a colleague in the office who will do so, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.

The justices rejected a San Diego County fertility clinic's attempt to use its physicians' religious beliefs as a justification for their refusal to provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. The ruling, based on a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against customers because of their sexual orientation, comes three months after the court struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage.

"This isn't just a win for me personally and for other lesbian women," said the plaintiff, Guadalupe Benitez. "Anyone could be the next target if doctors are allowed to pick and choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people."

The ruling is the first in the nation to address doctors' religious objections to treating gay or lesbian patients and should make health care more accessible, said Benitez's lawyer, Jennifer Pizer, of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Lawyers for the clinic and two of its doctors said they were considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. One supporter of the physicians called the ruling a strike against religious freedom.

The last emphasis is mine, as I thought it was quite funny. I suppose that a doctor's professional and ethical imperatives of aiding humanity can be shelved, but only when religion comes into play. :rolleyes:

They still have the ability to appeal to the US Supreme Court, whose previous precedents (from the late 1980s and early 1990s) put full support behind Justice Kennard, who wrote the opinion for the CA Supreme Court in this case. At least we have the comfort of knowing that one branch of California's government is doing its job correctly.

The rest of the article is here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/19/BA2212D6H4.DTL&hw=california+supreme+court&sn=003&sc=335).

r.j.s

Aug 20, 2008, 10:04 PM

I haven't read all the facts on this story yet, but I heard about it the other day and I read your article. I can see this from both sides.

I think that the doctors should be able to refuse something they feel goes against their religious beliefs, when it isnt a life or death situation - since they could go to a different doctor to get whatever elective procedure done.

However, the fact that this is a lesbian couple isn't necessary medical knowledge for artificial insemination, so that is something that shouldn't even play into the doctors' decision.

yg17

Aug 20, 2008, 10:10 PM

I don't think any discrimination should be allowed, period. If your religious beliefs prevent you from treating someone, then you shouldn't be a doctor. It's true with any job. If your religious beliefs prevent you from fully doing your job, then you're in the wrong line of work.

Sky Blue

Aug 20, 2008, 10:11 PM

If your religious beliefs prevent you from fully doing your job, then you're in the wrong line of work.

Agreed.

r.j.s

Aug 20, 2008, 10:12 PM

If your religious beliefs prevent you from fully doing your job, then you're in the wrong line of work.

That's what I had in mind in my second part, but I just couldn't find the words. It seems you have hit the nail on the head.

heaven

Aug 20, 2008, 10:14 PM

If your religious beliefs prevent you from treating someone, then you shouldn't be a doctor. It's true with any job. If your religious beliefs prevent you from fully doing your job, then you're in the wrong line of work.

I was just about to post the same thing as you mentioned. Its about time to stop any kind of discrimination that is going on. I don't see why it should be the doctors concern in any way.

CalBoy

Aug 20, 2008, 10:16 PM

I think that the doctors should be able to refuse something they feel goes against their religious beliefs, when it isnt a life or death situation

The crux of the matter is that doctors are licensed by the state, and when they choose to deny someone treatment (whether life threatening or not) on the basis of something arbitrary and bigoted, they aren't living up to the standards of their license. Imagine if we had allowed white doctors in the 1960s to deny black patients treatment on the basis of them being black.

More importantly, this doesn't stop the doctor from practicing his religion; it merely asks him to not let it affect his medical professionalism, which shouldn't be a problem to begin with.

- since they could go to a different doctor to get whatever elective procedure done.

Trouble is, that was the only clinic covered by her health care plan. What do you do then?

However, the fact that this is a lesbian couple isn't necessary medical knowledge for artificial insemination, so that is something that shouldn't even play into the doctors' decision.

Exactly. The orientation of an individual shouldn't matter in any medical treatment. Are their different drugs for gay men? For lesbians? Does some procedure stop working if its done on a gay person? The point is, the doctor refused to provide treatment only because he's a bigoted person, and the Bible makes a convenient shield.

Ugg

Aug 20, 2008, 10:17 PM

r.j.s

Aug 20, 2008, 10:21 PM

...

True. I wasn't really trying to defend the doctors' position, I was just saying I understood where they were coming from. I agree with the decision, it shouldn't be a factor, if they can't do their job - they should find a new one.

CalBoy

Aug 20, 2008, 10:27 PM

True. I wasn't really trying to defend their decision, I was just saying I understood where they were coming from. I agree with the decision, it shouldn't be a factor, if they can't do their job - they should find a new one.

Sorry, I just get really tired when the Religion Defense™ is used to defend bigotry (not that you did, just the people who were suing). It weakens the case for those times when religious freedom does need protection.

SMM

Aug 21, 2008, 12:51 AM

nbs2

Aug 21, 2008, 08:34 AM

This really may not be that big an issue. We may be talking about a fringe group ad it does not pertain to anyone but them. Doctors do not have the professional right to decide who they will treat, and those they will not. They know that.

Actually they do. If a doctor is uncomfortable with having you as a patient for any non-protected-class reason, they can refuse to accept or dump you. In an emergency they may be obligated to do so, but without incurring an overarching doctor-patient relationship.

leekohler

Aug 21, 2008, 08:37 AM

iGary

Aug 21, 2008, 08:41 AM

I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

Any doctor that denies a patient treatment because of who they **** should have their license yanked.

arkitect

Aug 21, 2008, 08:44 AM

Although personally speaking, I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who I know hates the very idea of my existence and is forced to…
Not what you might call an easy fit. :o

I'd just tell him/her to F-off and go find myself a doctor who isn't a bigot.

Any doctor that denies a patient treatment because of who they **** should have their license yanked.
Agreed.

Cleverboy

Aug 21, 2008, 09:16 AM

It weakens the case for those times when religious freedom does need protection. It certainly does, doesn't it? Meet double-edged sword.

~ CB

mactastic

Aug 21, 2008, 10:24 AM

Exactly. If you can't perform the duties of your job due to your religious faith, you need to find another job.

LethalWolfe

Aug 21, 2008, 11:04 AM

The irony of people citing Jesus Christ as the justification of their intolerance and/or hatred is getting old. Of course this case has a bit of double irony because these doctors at the fertility clinic are willing to 'play God' on hetero patients but say treating gay/lesbian patients is against their faith? Seriously?

Lethal

és:

Aug 21, 2008, 11:06 AM

Any doctor that denies a patient treatment because of who they **** should have their license yanked.

Absolutely.

I do support doctors that don't want to carry out abortions (for any reason be it religious or not) but this is completely different.

Desertrat

Aug 21, 2008, 11:53 AM

CalBoy

Aug 21, 2008, 11:59 AM

Seems to me that the "involuntary servitude" thing under the 13th Amendment oughta apply.

I believe the doctors are still receiving a payment of full market value for their services. :rolleyes:

Freedom. Liberty. All that out-moded stuff...

Yes, the freedom to be a bigot. I'm sure the Founding Fathers had that in mind.

Desertrat

Aug 21, 2008, 12:21 PM

leekohler

Aug 21, 2008, 12:35 PM

Yup. The right to be a bigot, a flaming fool, a bum; or to be warm-hearted and caring. Doesn't matter how someone behaves; one's personal behavior is one's right--so long as they stop short of your nose.

As far as the pay, what does that have to do with anything? You can pay a slave or an incarcerated prisoner; that doesn't change the condition of servitude.

This court decision is merely saying, "You must think proper thoughts!"

Sounds familiar, somehow, from the pages of history...

'Rat

No- the court did NOT say that. Dammit 'Rat, why do you have to disappoint me? They never told doctors what to think. They merely told them that they may not refuse treatment simply because of their religious beliefs. They can think whatever they want. And quite honestly, if those doctors took an actual look at the Bible, they'd be treating anyone and everyone.

majordude

Aug 21, 2008, 12:39 PM

I'm sure the Founding Fathers had that in mind.

Actually, they DID have that in mind. Back in their day, only wealthy, white land owners had any rights. Blacks were considered animals and property. These men were just a few generations from the puritans landing in America so they were Christians or at least identified with their beliefs of a god. They didn't permit women to vote until about 100 years ago.

Up until the late 1960s blacks and whites had to use separate bathrooms, hotels and water fountains.

Lord knows what would have happened to you if you were gay.

Don't think the world started with grunge and Nirvana.

.Andy

Aug 21, 2008, 02:28 PM

mactastic

Aug 21, 2008, 02:42 PM

And right on cue, Bush is out with another noxious rule (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26334679/) in a similar vein...
The Bush administration is proposing stronger job protections for doctors who refuse to perform abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said Thursday that doctors should not face retaliation from employers or medical societies because they object to abortion. Leavitt says "freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree."

Yup. The right to be a bigot, a flaming fool, a bum; or to be warm-hearted and caring. Doesn't matter how someone behaves; one's personal behavior is one's right--so long as they stop short of your nose.

As far as the pay, what does that have to do with anything? You can pay a slave or an incarcerated prisoner; that doesn't change the condition of servitude.
Have you checked the definition of "slave" lately? :p

This court decision is merely saying, "You must think proper thoughts!"

Sounds familiar, somehow, from the pages of history...

'Rat
Just like Nazi Germany, eh? Is that where you're headed with that comment?

And you're wrong about the court telling doctors how to think. They are telling them how to act in their professional capacity, not how to think.

An employer should be able to fire you if your moral code doesn't permit you to fulfill your job functions properly. Same for a pharmacist, an OB/GYN, a Christian teacher who feels like burning crosses on the arms of students, or a Muslim hairdresser.

és:

Aug 21, 2008, 02:42 PM

Jehovah's witness Doctor chooses not to administer blood transfusions due to her religion. Non Jehovah witness patient's die. 'Rat applauds doctor for exercising her freedom and liberty and cites the 13th amendment.

Bit extreme, mate. You don't really need to take it that far.

It's more like; Jehovah's witness Doctor chooses not to administer blood transfusions due to her religion. Somebody else does it, patient lives and praises Allah.

.Andy

Aug 21, 2008, 02:52 PM

Bit extreme, mate. You don't really need to take it that far.
Rubbish it's exactly the same thing. Someone exercising their 'religious' rights at the expense of a patient. As a doctor you are there to treat the patients to the best of your ability. Not to make personal statements.

It's more like; Jehovah's witness Doctor chooses not to administer blood transfusions due to her religion. Somebody else does it, patient lives and praises Allah.
You seem to be under the false impression that there are multiple doctors running around doing nothing that all have the specialty training to administer blood transfusions.

LethalWolfe

Aug 21, 2008, 02:57 PM

fivepoint

Aug 21, 2008, 04:21 PM

I figure it's a freedom-of-choice thing, just like any woman's right.

Seems to me that the "involuntary servitude" thing under the 13th Amendment oughta apply.

And anybody has the right to choose employers. To quit and not work someplace where the political or religious views are repugnant.

Freedom. Liberty. All that out-moded stuff...

'Rat

I was sick to my stomach reading the first 10 or so posts on the last page. Your post was a breath of fresh air. Excellent. Good to see some non exteme-liberal views on here. It's so disheartening to see people willing to throw away all of the freedoms and liberties afforded to us by the constitution and bill of rights just because it would make it less likely for certain people to feel offended by others. Republicans do it in the name of "security" and "morality." Democrats do it in the name of "helping the little guy" and "fairness." It's all the same.

Something I've come to accept lately... Many people only care about our rights and freedoms until the ones being taken away are the ones they hold most dear. If it doesn't affect them directly, well then... "who gives a damn!" People refuse to see the big picture, and instead look for instant gratification and the easy way out.

Yes, the freedom to be a bigot. I'm sure the Founding Fathers had that in mind.

Actually, yes, they did. People who don't study history, are bound to repeat it. I suggest you study the constitution and bill of rights a little... not just the words, but why those words were written. Who wrote them, and why.

.Andy

Aug 21, 2008, 04:29 PM

I was sick to my stomach reading the first 10 or so posts on the last page.
Luckily you could go to the doctor and be treated for this sickness. And your religion/sexuality/political viewpoints would not come into the picture at all. It's best kept that way.

Good to see some non exteme-liberal views on here. It's so disheartening to see people willing to throw away all of the freedoms and liberties afforded to us by the constitution and bill of rights just because it would make it less likely for certain people to feel offended by others.
Liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, arggh!

Something I've come to accept lately... Many people only care about our rights and freedoms until the ones being taken away are the ones they hold most dear. If it doesn't affect them directly, well then... "who gives a damn!" People refuse to see the big picture, and instead look for instant gratification and the easy way out.
Damn straight. Inane religionists don't seem to think what the ramifications on the community would be from withholding medical treatments based on their own personal irrational beliefs and ideology.

fivepoint

Aug 21, 2008, 04:42 PM

Luckily you could go to the doctor and be treated for this sickness. And your religion/sexuality/political viewpoints would not come into the picture at all. It's best kept that way.

If he wouldn't, I'd go to another doctor. No big deal. That's how the free market system works. That's how a free society works. We're not living in the former Soviet Union. You can't force a free thinking physician to perform a procedure their deeply and morally opposed to because YOU think it's right. Definitely not in this case, anyway. I, for one, am glad that people in prominent positions stand for moral things. Have a belief system, and stick to it. Regardless of political pressure. Strong morals/beliefs and strong enough people to stand by those beliefs is something we don't have enough of in this world.

Liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, arggh!

Enough whining. People say the same thing about "conservatives" and "libertarians". You need to stand up for what you believe in and OWN the term. If you don't like what the term stands for, help your party define themselves so. The word liberal, actually used to mean something very different. It was far closer to the "libertarians" we have today. The term stood for someone first and foremost concerned with the freedoms of individuals and keeping the government small and in-check. It no longer means that.

Damn straight. Inane religionists don't seem to think what the ramifications on the community would be from withholding medical treatments based on their own personal irrational beliefs and ideology.

The truth comes out. You're all for the destruction of our freedoms/liberties, as long as that works towards your short-term goal. You're willing to throw away the fundamental system our country was built on so that a patient can feel less 'offended' when they go to the doctor, so someone can kill their child without having to worry about the doctor refusing to help. The list goes on and on, but as soon as someone tells you that you can no longer eat fatty foods, or drive your car because it is "too dangerous", or something that matters to you, then you'll be all up in arms. You think that the only rights/freedoms that are worth saving, are the ones that mean something to you NOW. How sad. Thanks for clarifying your position, though.

leekohler

Aug 21, 2008, 04:58 PM

I was sick to my stomach reading the first 10 or so posts on the last page. Your post was a breath of fresh air. Excellent. Good to see some non exteme-liberal views on here. It's so disheartening to see people willing to throw away all of the freedoms and liberties afforded to us by the constitution and bill of rights just because it would make it less likely for certain people to feel offended by others. Republicans do it in the name of "security" and "morality." Democrats do it in the name of "helping the little guy" and "fairness." It's all the same.

Excuse me- since when is discrimination a "right"? You've obviously never had to deal with this kind of discrimination in your life. Think about it for just one minute.

Something I've come to accept lately... Many people only care about our rights and freedoms until the ones being taken away are the ones they hold most dear. If it doesn't affect them directly, well then... "who gives a damn!" People refuse to see the big picture, and instead look for instant gratification and the easy way out.

I care about rights and freedoms. And your rights and freedoms. And yours end where mine begin. That includes doctors who think they can just refuse patients' care because of some silly antiquated "belief". They want to believe that stuff, fine. They have a right to it. But don't make others suffer for it. Hmm..and what about the hippocratic oath?

Actually, yes, they did. People who don't study history, are bound to repeat it. I suggest you study the constitution and bill of rights a little... not just the words, but why those words were written. Who wrote them, and why.

I could say the same for you.

Mac-Addict

Aug 21, 2008, 05:05 PM

skunk

Aug 21, 2008, 05:05 PM

If he wouldn't, I'd go to another doctor. No big deal. That's how the free market system works. That's how a free society works.How on earth would you know? :confused: We're not living in the former Soviet Union. You can't force a free thinking physician to perform a procedure their deeply and morally opposed to because YOU think it's right.What has this tendentious assertion got to do with the "former Soviet Union"? I, for one, am glad that people in prominent positions stand for moral things. Have a belief system, and stick to it. Regardless of political pressure. Strong morals/beliefs and strong enough people to stand by those beliefs is something we don't have enough of in this world.On the contrary, we have far too much of it.

mactastic

Aug 21, 2008, 05:11 PM

So it's ok if the vegetarian clerk at the grocery store refuses to sell you meat? And since he's the only checker open, you must either find a new store or forgo meat that night?

It's ok if the "no blood for oil" cashier at the gas station refuses to sell you gas even if he's the only station open in town and you're low?

It's ok if the Muslim hairdresser who refuses to remove her head covering sues you for not allowing her to work in your salon?

.Andy

Aug 21, 2008, 05:15 PM

If he wouldn't, I'd go to another doctor. No big deal. That's how the free market system works. That's how a free society works. We're not living in the former Soviet Union. You can't force a free thinking physician to perform a procedure their deeply and morally opposed to because YOU think it's right. Definitely not in this case, anyway. I, for one, am glad that people in prominent positions stand for moral things. Have a belief system, and stick to it. Regardless of political pressure. Strong morals/beliefs and strong enough people to stand by those beliefs is something we don't have enough of in this world.
I thought you were all about the bigger picture? As a physician you treat the people to the best of your abilities with their best interests at heart. Not your own. If someone comes to a physician with HIV they should be counselled on that condition non-judgemntally. Turning them away based on their religion, political affiliation, or sexuality puts their life, and the lives of others in community at risk. Bigger picture.

It's difficult enough to seek healthcare (making the time, getting up the motivation, getting over your embarrassment in some cases) without being turned away by a doctor based on their bigotry as you advocate. You might have unlimited time to doctor shop for one that doesn't discriminate against you or your condition, but not many other people do.

p.s. medicine is not something that should be subject to the free market. It doesn't work (i.e. look at the US health system). Everyone needs equal treatment and access to medical help, and should not be triaged based on how profitable their condition is. Medical care cannot be equated with the market forces of electrical goods.

As to your Soviet Union comment. Ugh. Just ugh.

Enough whining.
If only.

The truth comes out. You're all for the destruction of our freedoms/liberties, as long as that works towards your short-term goal.
My short term goal of ensuring everyone is entitled to equal medical care regardless of their sexuality, religion, political views? That no one goes without treatment based on the bigotry of medical staff. You got me. If you'd come into my hospital I'd treat you regardless with the best of my abilities, even though I find your views repugnant. You'll have to explain how I've eroded your (or others) freedoms/liberties.

You're willing to throw away the fundamental system our country was built on so that a patient can feel less 'offended' when they go to the doctor
It's not about being offended. It's about being given the best medical treatment they deserve. First day of medical school you learn to leave your bigotry at the door. You treat everyone to the best of your abilities non-judgementally. The health of the patient in front of you has ramifications for many others. Again you'll have to explain how I'm eroding anything.

so someone can kill their child without having to worry about the doctor refusing to help.
This is not only about abortion which is a necessary medical procedure. The truth in your argument comes out here. Your stance on this issue aligns with your views on abortion, not on freedom or liberty or the bigger picture of the welfare of the patient or society.

something that matters to you, then you'll be all up in arms. You think that the only rights/freedoms that are worth saving, are the ones that mean something to you NOW. How sad. Thanks for clarifying your position, though.
The irony of this argument. I'm not a woman and I'm not gay but I'll fight for their rights tooth and nail to be provided the very best of healthcare and rights to the best of my abilities. I'm not big on swastika tattoos but I'll treat patients who get their's infected. I'm not big on illegal street racers but I'll ensure they are treated to the best of my abilities when they're bought into casualty. I'm not big on rapists but I'll treat them to the best of my abilities.

nbs2

Aug 21, 2008, 05:24 PM

So, I went and read the article, and noticed something.

It's dumb.

This has nothing to with religion or sexual orientation or insemination or anything else.

The state as established a group of protected classes which may not be relied upon in making a business decision. The doctors chose to decline services to someone in the protected class. Therefore, they should have, and did, lose. This is no different than if they were gay and had refused to treat a straight woman.

If they had wanted to address the constitutionality of orientation as a class, they probably would have lost. It isn't clear if they did, and can thus rely on it in appeal.

Relying on a freedom of religion argument isn't going to work, as all people, regardless of religion, are equally affected by the protection of groups. It's a silly argument that sounds good, but is bandied about by conservatives in the same silly manner as separation of church and state is by liberals.

Of course, this doesn't change anything. If the doctors suspect homosexuality, they can ask any of a multitude of questions - political leanings, field of occupation, etc. - and based their decision on that. Heck they could even rely on "what are your feelings regarding homosexuals?" as that is not protected. Could they go to the insurance company and share their experience, hoping to have other nearby options signed or have the doctors dropped as providers? Yes. But that's it.

Oh, and because I'm not going to bother hunting down the post, the Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding - but state board may look at the ethical question.

iGary

Aug 21, 2008, 05:24 PM

This is the way being a doctor works - you treat human beings.

You don't like certain human beings then don't be a doctor.

It's like me going to work for NARTH and saying that I don't believe in reparative therapy, but I still want to work there.

leekohler

Aug 21, 2008, 05:27 PM

Oh, and because I'm not going to bother hunting down the post, the Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding - but state board may look at the ethical question.

That was me- and I never said it was legally binding. Noticed fivepoint hasn't been back. How typical. :rolleyes: Maybe he's too busy getting "sick to his stomach". :)

.Andy

Aug 21, 2008, 05:33 PM

Oh, and because I'm not going to bother hunting down the post, the Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding
The hippocratic oath is also not something many doctors take these days. It's largely anachronistic. There are newer oaths that you can take, or as most modern doctors do you can just abide by the rules and regulations set up by their medical registration board.

fivepoint

Aug 21, 2008, 05:38 PM

My view on things: Keep your own stupid PERSONAL opinions outside WORK. You're allowed to have your own opinions at home but the second you are getting paid to do a job, if regulations of that job say nothing about gay patients then you either follow regulations or get fired. And if your religion doesn't allow you to do so then maybe you're not suited for that job. ktxbi :)

These aren't "opinions", these are deeply held core beliefs. In any job there is, I would hope that employees don't just "do what they're told." I would hope they do a gut check before doing anything questionable and ask themselves whether they think it is "right." Depending on what they decide, their employer can make a decision on whether or not that individual should stay employed there. In the event that it is a private practice, they have the right to run it how they see fit.

So it's ok if the vegetarian clerk at the grocery store refuses to sell you meat? And since he's the only checker open, you must either find a new store or forgo meat that night?

It's ok if the "no blood for oil" cashier at the gas station refuses to sell you gas even if he's the only station open in town and you're low?

It's ok if the Muslim hairdresser who refuses to remove her head covering sues you for not allowing her to work in your salon?

Yes. Yes. And yes. Thank God! In each case, it is up to the boss, or the owner of the establishment to determine whether he/she can continue to work there. The government should have NO SAY.

The bottom line, is that it's not the role of government to determine morality. Perhaps the government will next decide that no doctor can turn a way a patient who wishes for an assisted suicide. Do you see the problem here? You don't want a small group of people in washington determining the entire nation's morality. It's not the government's role. It was never intended to be. We are living in a free society, not a communist state.

leekohler

Aug 21, 2008, 05:42 PM

These aren't "opinions", these are deeply held core beliefs. In any job there is, I would hope that employees don't just "do what they're told." I would hope they do a gut check before doing anything questionable and ask themselves whether they think it is "right." Depending on what they decide, their employer can make a decision on whether or not that individual should stay employed there. In the event that it is a private practice, they have the right to run it how they see fit.

No- they don't. There are all sorts of rules by which all businesses must abide, especially medical practices.

Yes. Yes. And yes. Thank God! In each case, it is up to the boss, or the owner of the establishment to determine whether he/she can continue to work there. The government should have NO SAY.

The bottom line, is that it's not the role of government to determine morality. Perhaps the government will next decide that no doctor can turn a way a patient who wishes for an assisted suicide. Do you see the problem here? You don't want a small group of people in washington determining the entire nation's morality. It's not the government's role. It was never intended to be. We are living in a free society, not a communist state.

You are not free to harm others because of your beliefs. Have you read anything in this thread? Go back and read .Andy's post again.

fivepoint

Aug 21, 2008, 05:51 PM

I thought you were all about the bigger picture? As a physician you treat the people to the best of your abilities with their best interests at heart. Not your own. If someone comes to a physician with HIV they should be counselled on that condition non-judgemntally. Turning them away based on their religion, political affiliation, or sexuality puts their life, and the lives of others in community at risk. Bigger picture.

It's difficult enough to seek healthcare (making the time, getting up the motivation, getting over your embarrassment in some cases) without being turned away by a doctor based on their bigotry as you advocate. You might have unlimited time to doctor shop for one that doesn't discriminate against you or your condition, but not many other people do.

p.s. medicine is not something that should be subject to the free market. It doesn't work (i.e. look at the US health system). Everyone needs equal treatment and access to medical help, and should not be triaged based on how profitable their condition is. Medical care cannot be equated with the market forces of electrical goods.

As to your Soviet Union comment. Ugh. Just ugh.

If only.

My short term goal of ensuring everyone is entitled to equal medical care regardless of their sexuality, religion, political views? That no one goes without treatment based on the bigotry of medical staff. You got me. If you'd come into my hospital I'd treat you regardless with the best of my abilities, even though I find your views repugnant. You'll have to explain how I've eroded your (or others) freedoms/liberties.

It's not about being offended. It's about being given the best medical treatment they deserve. First day of medical school you learn to leave your bigotry at the door. You treat everyone to the best of your abilities non-judgementally. The health of the patient in front of you has ramifications for many others. Again you'll have to explain how I'm eroding anything.

This is not only about abortion which is a necessary medical procedure. The truth in your argument comes out here. Your stance on this issue aligns with your views on abortion, not on freedom or liberty or the bigger picture of the welfare of the patient or society.

The irony of this argument. I'm not a woman and I'm not gay but I'll fight for their rights tooth and nail to be provided the very best of healthcare and rights to the best of my abilities. I'm not big on swastika tattoos but I'll treat patients who get their's infected. I'm not big on illegal street racers but I'll ensure they are treated to the best of my abilities when they're bought into casualty. I'm not big on rapists but I'll treat them to the best of my abilities.

Here, sir, is the big difference between your argument and mine. I, too, would treat anyone in my hospital. I don't care of Hitler himself came in (ok, well, I might kill that guy) but if ANYONE came in they would get complete medical attention if life-threatening or the help couldn't be found elsewhere. We agree on this point. People should get the best care possible.

where we disagree is that you think the government should mandate a physician to do things he is morally opposed to doing, when other physician options are available to the patient and the issue is FAR from life-threatening. I, on the other hand, KNOW that they have no right to do so. As a hospital owner I would expect my physicians to be moral people. To help people because it's the right thing to do, and not just because the government tells them to. If they chose not to implant a lesbian, or to perform an abortion, or anything like that for their own moral reasons I would support their RIGHT to make that decision and hire/fire them depending on the type of business I was running. I could say, "I'm sorry, but that is not how we run this hospital. No one is allowed to turn away "X" procedure in my hospital. Then we would part ways.

YOU think that the government has the right to mandate morality. At least in this case. Until they start mandating that gays can't get married, and then you're up in arms.

Just use my "assisted suicide" example. Do you want the government mandating assisted suicide? Forcing physicians into performing it? Where do you draw the line?

skunk

Aug 21, 2008, 05:52 PM

These aren't "opinions", these are deeply held core beliefs.Or, to put it another way, "opinions".In any job there is, I would hope that employees don't just "do what they're told."Attending professionally and within the law to the needs of their patients is not subject to the "Nuremburg Defence". The bottom line, is that it's not the role of government to determine morality.Well actually, it is: the government makes laws based on what it thinks is morally acceptable. It certainly is not the role of the doctor to determine morality. We are living in a free society, not a communist state.Good grief! Will you stop repeating that tired and irrelevant mantra?

.Andy

Aug 21, 2008, 05:52 PM

These aren't "opinions", these are deeply held core beliefs.
Core beliefs :confused:? They are still arbitrary opinions no matter how strongly someone proclaims them. Popping the word 'core' in front of something does not give it gravitas. That's core ridiculousness.

Perhaps the government will next decide that no doctor can turn a way a patient who wishes for an assisted suicide.
This is a terrible slippery slope argument (they all are) that stems from you seeming to think euthanasia would just be dished out by general practitioners in their offices.

In reality the proposed approaches would be far different. Most require that if a patient wished to terminate their life and sought medical help to do so, it would not be carried out until there was review and assessment by a much larger multi-disciplinary team including psychologists, counsellors, case workers, palliative care specialists etc etc. It would also not be carried out by people who weren't or didn't train in euthanasia. It would be well within the right of a doctor to refuse to carry out euthanasia if they were not trained to do it or if the patient had not been subject to the appropriate review.

leekohler

Aug 21, 2008, 05:56 PM

YOU think that the government has the right to mandate morality. At least in this case. Until they start mandating that gays can't get married, and then you're up in arms.

Gays getting married doesn't hurt anyone.

fivepoint

Aug 21, 2008, 05:57 PM

In reality the proposed approaches would be far different. Most require that if a patient wished to terminate their life and sought medical help to do so, it would not be carried out until there was review and assessment by a much larger multi-disciplinary team including psychologists, counsellors, case workers, palliative care specialists etc etc. It would also not be carried out by people who weren't or didn't train in euthanasia. It would be well within the right of a doctor to refuse to carry out euthanasia if they were not trained to do it or if the patient had not been subject to the appropriate review.

Just to be clear... you're saying that if the government wants to mandate that physicians can not turn down a patient wanting assistance in "assisted suicide." Correct?

Gays getting married doesn't hurt anyone.

I tend to agree. I don't think the government should "marrying people" anyway. Marriage is an institution of the church.

Ugg

Aug 21, 2008, 06:01 PM

Just to be clear... you're saying that if the government wants to mandate that physicians can not turn down a patient wanting assistance in "assisted suicide." Correct?

Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.

fivepoint

Aug 21, 2008, 06:01 PM

It certainly is not the role of the doctor to determine morality.

It's the role of every living human being to ask themselves important questions and determine their own morality. Too often people just choose to follow what ever is popular, and never really think deeply about what they KNOW is right/wrong.

I hope you don't raise your kids to be "yes men" and to do everything the government tells them to. We all need to question authority, be independent, and stand for something real. Life, love, and liberty!

mactastic

Aug 21, 2008, 06:01 PM

Yes. Yes. And yes. Thank God! In each case, it is up to the boss, or the owner of the establishment to determine whether he/she can continue to work there. The government should have NO SAY.

The bottom line, is that it's not the role of government to determine morality. Perhaps the government will next decide that no doctor can turn a way a patient who wishes for an assisted suicide. Do you see the problem here? You don't want a small group of people in washington determining the entire nation's morality. It's not the government's role. It was never intended to be. We are living in a free society, not a communist state.
That's funny, because when we discussed the Muslim hairdresser issue here a while back, the general consensus was that an employer has a right to require their employees to adhere to certain requirements, and if your religion doesn't allow you to meet those requirements then you should seek employment elsewhere; and that you didn't have a right to override your employer's requirements with your religious views.

fivepoint

Aug 21, 2008, 06:05 PM

Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.

No, I read it correctly... but when you're reading you can't just take things out of context. If you read that paragraph and mesh it with what he's been saying for pages now, you'll see that I am correct.

If all of the stages of the euthanasia approval process had gone through, and the doctor who was supposed to perform the action had a last second gut-check and determined that he was morally opposed to assisting in the killing of another human being, are you saying that he should be punished because of it? That the government should MANDATE that he does it because he is a physician and physicians don't turn service away from anybody. The public should get the best care possible!

fivepoint

Aug 21, 2008, 06:07 PM

That's funny, because when we discussed the Muslim hairdresser issue here a while back, the general consensus was that an employer has a right to require their employees to adhere to certain requirements, and if your religion doesn't allow you to meet those requirements then you should seek employment elsewhere; and that you didn't have a right to override your employer's requirements with your religious views.

And... I fail to see the funny part? I agree completely with the "general consensus." That is what my "yes" means. Ah... I get it now. It wasn't worded the way I thought it was. At any rate, I agree with the "general consensus." The government has no right to interfere.

yg17

Aug 21, 2008, 06:07 PM

Bit extreme, mate. You don't really need to take it that far.

It's more like; Jehovah's witness Doctor chooses not to administer blood transfusions due to her religion. Somebody else does it, patient lives and praises Allah.
If I'm rushed to the ER dying but a blood transfusion ASAP will save me, there's not time to find another doctor. The difference between receiving blood now and receiving blood 10 seconds from now could determine life or death, and I don't have the time to find a doctor who won't let religious beliefs get in the way of his job.

skunk

Aug 21, 2008, 06:08 PM

Life, love, and liberty!Except if you're female, foreign or heathen.

Ugg

Aug 21, 2008, 06:09 PM

No, I read it correctly... but when you're reading you can't just take things out of context. If you read that paragraph and mesh it with what he's been saying for pages now, you'll see that I am correct.

If all of the stages of the euthanasia approval process had gone through, and the doctor who was supposed to perform the action had a last second gut-check and determined that he was morally opposed to assisting in the killing of another human being, are you saying that he should be punished because of it? That the government should MANDATE that he does it because he is a physician and physicians don't turn service away from anybody. The public should get the best care possible!

There's no room for flip floppers in medicine.

.Andy

Aug 21, 2008, 06:14 PM

Just to be clear... you're saying that if the government wants to mandate that physicians can not turn down a patient wanting assistance in "assisted suicide." Correct?
If an individual comes to medical staff seeking to end their lives the very best course of action (assuming the patient is adamant they wish to end their lives following a full session) would be to refer these people on to those with the required and training to assess the patient psychologically. If they are in immediate danger to themselves or others (or obviously psychologically disturbed) the best thing to do would be to have them admitted to a psych ward for their own safety/review. If they aren't in immediate danger and wish to go through the proper channels to euthanasia (assuming there will be such a thing in the future) then that's where they should be referred for review.

It's likely that in the many of cases people would not actually want to go through with euthanasia and are motivated by factors (physical or psychological) that could be uncovered and dealt with during their counselling/psych sessions. Probably only a very small proportion of patients without serious terminal illness would likely qualify for medical assisted suicide.

Turning a patient away who is intent on ending their lives is professionally negligent and creating larger problems. It's putting the patient and the community in danger. There's far more pain and suffering for everyone in people attempting to commit suicide. You want to do everything you can to get these people into the system to get adequate psychological review/help.

Rodimus Prime

Aug 21, 2008, 06:21 PM

here is my question. If if is an elective surgery, or procedure then why the hell would you want some one doing it who does not want to do it for X reason.

To me that part screams stupidity. You are not going to get the best service, the chances are a mistake or something going wrong greatly increase. I am not saying on purpose but because the doctors is dealing with gut check issues and distracted.

To me I find an eletive proceedure it should be the doctors choice and if they can not or will not do it they should a least be able to refer you to someone who will.

fivepoint

Aug 21, 2008, 06:26 PM

If an individual comes to medical staff seeking to end their lives the very best course of action (assuming the patient is adamant they wish to end their lives following a full session) would be to refer these people on to those with the required and training to assess the patient psychologically. If they are in immediate danger to themselves or others (or obviously psychologically disturbed) the best thing to do would be to have them admitted to a psych ward for their own safety/review. If they aren't in immediate danger and wish to go through the proper channels to euthanasia (assuming there will be such a thing in the future) then that's where they should be referred for review.

It's likely that in the many of cases people would not actually want to go through with euthanasia and are motivated by factors (physical or psychological) that could be uncovered and dealt with during their counselling/psych sessions. Probably only a very small proportion of patients without serious terminal illness would likely qualify for medical assisted suicide.

Turning a patient away who is intent on ending their lives is professionally negligent and creating larger problems. It's putting the patient and the community in danger. There's far more pain and suffering for everyone in people attempting to commit suicide. You want to do everything you can to get these people into the system to get adequate psychological review/help.

I want to thank you (sincerely) for the thought-out response. I agree with you that Assisted suicide is a very touchy issue, and is not something to be taken lightly. Things need to be done in a particular way, so to respect the individual and their wishes.

However, I must point out that you're missing the bigger issue here. This isn't about assisted suicide or any other procedure. This is about governmental control over the morality of citizens. I would like to know where you sit on this procedure, because it would help me to understand how you could possibly have the opinions you do on the other procedure.

Do you, or do you not, think that the government should be able to MANDATE that a physician perform an assisted suicide is that is the patient's wish? The same holds true for any other procedure which is potentially a moral issue. I understand that bosses can control this, and fire people/punish accordingly.... but what I am asking is whether you think the GOVERNMENT has the right to mandate what is moral or not, and force someone to drop their morals, drop their faith, drop their core-values and do something that is against their very 'being.'

IF so, then we agree to disagree. you think the government has far more long-reaching powers, and I KNOW that it wasn't intended to be that way. The government was created to maintain order, provide for it's citizens defense, and a very few other core functions to help maintain the strength of the society. At any rate, I hope you can at least see the reasoning behind this type of position, and respect it for what it is... and avoid the knee-jerk reactions of others claiming bigotry and such. It's really sad when that happens.

skunk

Aug 21, 2008, 06:36 PM

LethalWolfe

Aug 21, 2008, 06:57 PM

Perhaps the government will next decide that no doctor can turn a way a patient who wishes for an assisted suicide. Do you see the problem here?
Do you see that your analogy doesn't fit? The gov't isn't saying the doctor must perform a procedure s/he is opposed to. The gov't is saying the doctor can't use things like sexual orientation as the basis of deciding who gets medical treatment and who doesn't.

Just out of curiosity, what is you opinion of the civil rights movement?

Lethal

Iscariot

Aug 21, 2008, 07:01 PM

Keeping "the government" out of it is hardly an argument. "The government" governs everything within the free market. There are minimum wage laws, safety regulations, manufacturing standards, and a whole host of other regulations that businesses must abide by. The free market does not entitle one the freedom to do whatever it is you like and let the market sort it out.

If your religious beliefs prevent you from fulfilling the obligations of your career then you change your career or you change your beliefs. The career does not change for you. I no more support changing the law to allow doctors to pick and choose procedures based on morality than I do changing the law to allow police officers to wear out of uniform religious garments or fire fighters to not fight fires during prayer time. These are all public services, and they are not to be denied to or decided by anyone based on any kind of religious morality.

leekohler

Aug 21, 2008, 07:26 PM

I tend to agree. I don't think the government should "marrying people" anyway. Marriage is an institution of the church.

Really? You're the one who needs to study history and the legal system. Marriage is also a legal agreement. Historically, it was used to determine acquisition of property, amongst other things. Marriage has never been solely a function of the church.

Do you see that your analogy doesn't fit? The gov't isn't saying the doctor must perform a procedure s/he is opposed to. The gov't is saying the doctor can't use things like sexual orientation as the basis of deciding who gets medical treatment and who doesn't.

Just out of curiosity, what is you opinion of the civil rights movement?

Lethal

Don't expect him to get that one. You're banging your head against the wall.

EDIT- sorry, that was a bit strong. I'm crabby today. :)

CalBoy

Aug 21, 2008, 07:46 PM

Actually, they DID have that in mind. Back in their day, only wealthy, white land owners had any rights. Blacks were considered animals and property. These men were just a few generations from the puritans landing in America so they were Christians or at least identified with their beliefs of a god. They didn't permit women to vote until about 100 years ago.

Forgive me, I should have phrased that differently.

The Founding Fathers did not have discrimination/bigotry in mind as we would think of it. Instead, they sought to secure maximum rights to those who were deemed worthy (ie land-owning white males).

The notion of using the law to specifically create separations didn't appear until after slavery had ended (because it had become necessary).

Actually, yes, they did. People who don't study history, are bound to repeat it. I suggest you study the constitution and bill of rights a little... not just the words, but why those words were written. Who wrote them, and why.

For the first part of your comment, I refer you to my above statements, and for the second, I have a few words to show you as well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Had the Court sided with the doctors, they would have given an unfair advantage to one religion which wants to discriminate against societies newest pariahs. I notice you seemed to have forgotten that part of the First Amendment.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Granted the doctor isn't a part of the state, but if the state is going to issue a license for him to practice medicine, then it becomes the state's business to make sure that the doctor is living up to the standards of the license, because if the state didn't, there would be persons who would not receive equal protection of the law.

YOU think that the government has the right to mandate morality. At least in this case. Until they start mandating that gays can't get married, and then you're up in arms.

No one is saying that the state can or should regulate morality. What we're saying is that personal morality and belief shouldn't factor into one's professional career. That allows a person to exercise their beliefs on their personal time, while ensuring that no other person is affected by it.

As for your other comment, the simple fact that the state is attempting to regulate morality is why gay marriage isn't already legal at the federal level. Incessant Bible-thumping has produced our current climate of hatred.

Just use my "assisted suicide" example. Do you want the government mandating assisted suicide? Forcing physicians into performing it? Where do you draw the line?

Read the case carefully again. The doctor hasn't been forced to perform a procedure he disagrees with, but rather that he must perform the procedure because he does so with other patients, and his only objection is that she's a lesbian.

If the doctor doesn't believe in performing artificial insemination, then one wonders why he wanted to be a doctor to begin with. Oh wait, he's perfectly ok with artificial insemination, it's just the fags he doesn't like.

spamdumpster

Aug 21, 2008, 08:06 PM

leekohler

Aug 21, 2008, 08:08 PM

These types of issues should never even come up in the first place. There should be an intelligence test that has to be passed before one can become a doctor. Being religious, in the sense of believing in a "creator," automatically indicates that you're unintelligent and, accordingly, should prevent you from passing the test.

Whoa! Now hold on- that's not true, and is a complete generalization. The majority of the population holds at least moderate religious beliefs. It the people who are on the extreme end of the scale who cause the problems.

spamdumpster

Aug 21, 2008, 08:12 PM

Whoa! Now hold on- that's not true, and is a complete generalization. The majority of the population holds at least moderate religious beliefs. It the people who are on the extreme end of the scale who cause the problems.

Of course, I agree that the majority of people hold at least moderate religious beliefs. But that doesn't mean that their beliefs are correct. Believing in an invisible God is no different from my three year old believing that there are monsters in his closet -- except that most religious people are far more afraid of their god than the little guy is of the monsters.

LethalWolfe

Aug 21, 2008, 08:22 PM

These types of issues should never even come up in the first place. There should be an intelligence test that has to be passed before one can become a doctor. Being religious, in the sense of believing in a "creator," automatically indicates that you're unintelligent and, accordingly, should prevent you from passing the test.
Ahhhh... I love the smell of elitism in the morning...

Lethal

Eraserhead

Aug 21, 2008, 08:27 PM

Except if you're female, foreign or heathen.

Or poor...

majordude

Aug 21, 2008, 08:39 PM

Or poor...

There will always be the poor. Trying to fix that is a futile effort.

Your biblical lesson for the day:

"For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." [Mark 14:7 KJV]

(Red means Jesus said that.)

SMM

Aug 21, 2008, 08:50 PM

However, I must point out that you're missing the bigger issue here. This isn't about assisted suicide or any other procedure. This is about governmental control over the morality of citizens. [..]

Do you, or do you not, think that the government should be able to MANDATE that a physician perform an assisted suicide is that is the patient's wish? The same holds true for any other procedure which is potentially a moral issue. I understand that bosses can control this, and fire people/punish accordingly.... but what I am asking is whether you think the GOVERNMENT has the right to mandate what is moral or not, and force someone to drop their morals, drop their faith, drop their core-values and do something that is against their very 'being.'

[...]

You seem to be missing the bigger issue. In your first paragraph, you say this is not about assisted suicide, then contradict yourself by referencing it in the very next one.

What is at issue is not doctors not wanting to perform an objectionable procedure, but refusing to treat a large group of Americans because of who they are. If you read carefully, it clearly states they have the option to refer the patient to another (less prejudiced) physician.

It seems to me, you are trying to support the views of the religious right, and the arguments against governmental control is a smokescreen. Doctors also take an oath for their professional conduct. It is suppose to be of a higher standard than the government might mandate. It seems like these doctors have found it convenient to forget this. For them to claim 'moral beliefs', while ignoring their oaths, makes their voices ring hollow in my ears.

Eraserhead

Aug 21, 2008, 09:24 PM

There will always be the poor. Trying to fix that is a futile effort.

Your biblical lesson for the day:

"For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." [Mark 14:7 KJV]

(Red means Jesus said that.)

But they don't have to live in third-world slums with third-world healthcare and third-world education like they do in the US.

hulugu

Aug 21, 2008, 10:28 PM

...Oh, and because I'm not going to bother hunting down the post, the Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding - but state board may look at the ethical question.

No, the oath is not. However, shouldn't one attempt to follow an oath that they have agreed to adhere to?

These aren't "opinions", these are deeply held core beliefs. In any job there is, I would hope that employees don't just "do what they're told." I would hope they do a gut check before doing anything questionable and ask themselves whether they think it is "right." Depending on what they decide, their employer can make a decision on whether or not that individual should stay employed there. In the event that it is a private practice, they have the right to run it how they see fit.

Yes. Yes. And yes. Thank God! In each case, it is up to the boss, or the owner of the establishment to determine whether he/she can continue to work there. The government should have NO SAY.

The bottom line, is that it's not the role of government to determine morality. Perhaps the government will next decide that no doctor can turn a way a patient who wishes for an assisted suicide. Do you see the problem here? You don't want a small group of people in washington determining the entire nation's morality. It's not the government's role. It was never intended to be. We are living in a free society, not a communist state.

I know we have a different view of government, you assume it to be a foreign entity, while I'll (still) believe in the government of the people and by the people, so that the decisions made in Washington or, in my case, Phoenix should reflect my own ideas. When it doesn't, it's time to throw the bums out. This may reflect a certain naiveté, but it's still how I think.
With this said, of course the government has some say in how Doctor's perform, they are a licensed practice by a state board.

Just to be clear... you're saying that if the government wants to mandate that physicians can not turn down a patient wanting assistance in "assisted suicide." Correct?

I tend to agree. I don't think the government should "marrying people" anyway. Marriage is an institution of the church.

Both examples strike me as non sequiturs. However, a doctor who refused to practice in "assisted suicides" would be in the clear, but one who refused to give such a procedure to a specific group of people would be in trouble.

As for marriage, remember that a marriage in the eyes of the government is a legal agreement for property and other rights. So, yes the government does "marry" people by acting in this legal framework. The spiritual aspect can be handled by your local witch doctor, or whatever particular system you believe in.

It's the role of every living human being to ask themselves important questions and determine their own morality. Too often people just choose to follow what ever is popular, and never really think deeply about what they KNOW is right/wrong.

I hope you don't raise your kids to be "yes men" and to do everything the government tells them to. We all need to question authority, be independent, and stand for something real. Life, love, and liberty!

As a matter of fact, only nbs2 has pointed out that the judgment in question is not about refusing to carry out procedures because of objections based on religious beliefs. The doctors were only in the wrong for refusing on the grounds of the sexual orientation of their patients. If they had refused to carry out AI on anyone, regardless of orientation or marital status, they could have got away with it. The case was about discrimination, not morality.

And skunk gets it in one shot. The discrimination is the problem. Frankly, if the doctor's beliefs are so important to him, he should be willing to accept the consequences of refusing to treat a patient. It's odd that those who talk so highly of personal responsibility think that an act of abject defiance shouldn't come with consequences.

r.j.s

Aug 21, 2008, 10:35 PM

hulugu

Aug 21, 2008, 10:48 PM

The way I see it is this: The doctors are discriminating against the patients, period. What if it was the procedure?

Let me pose a hypothetical question:

How would everyone react if the same couple was asking the doctors to an uncommon procedure (not normally done at that clinic, but possible) that they did not agree with on religious grounds?

Well, let's assume that the procedure had some serious ethical question (it relies on some kind of black magic that requires the deaths of 20 virgins). That would be a valid reason not to perform it.

However, if a doctor has been performing the "20 virgins maneuver" for years then decides he won't do it because a couple from Wisconsin wants it (and he hates Wisconsin), that would be discriminatory.

atszyman

Aug 21, 2008, 11:15 PM

spamdumpster

Aug 22, 2008, 06:47 AM

Ahhhh... I love the smell of elitism in the morning...

Lethal

How is my comment at all elitist? In fact, there's nothing more elitist than organized western religion, which, by definition excludes from important places (like heaven) anyone who's not a member.

majordude

Aug 22, 2008, 08:56 AM

How is my comment at all elitist? In fact, there's nothing more elitist than organized western religion, which, by definition excludes from important places (like heaven) anyone who's not a member.

But membership is free. All you have to do is believe.

How can it be exclusive if it is given away freely?

nbs2

Aug 22, 2008, 09:37 AM

As a matter of fact, only nbs2 has pointed out that the judgment in question is not about refusing to carry out procedures because of objections based on religious beliefs. The doctors were only in the wrong for refusing on the grounds of the sexual orientation of their patients. If they had refused to carry out AI on anyone, regardless of orientation or marital status, they could have got away with it. The case was about discrimination, not morality.

If skunk and I agree, I may need to reevaluate my position. ;)

The only point detail that I would like to clarify is that the doctors would have been totally within their rights to discriminate based on a non-protected class. For example, if the lady had a tatoo, and they refused to treat her because they don't like tatoos, this case would have been won by the doctors. The tatoo'd are not a protected class. If they had told the lady that because she was rude, they would not treat her, they would have been within their rights. Rudeness is not protected.

A few years ago, they would have been kosher, as sexual orientation was not a protected status. But, the law is the law is the law.

So, I have to ask, why are we still even discussing this?

LethalWolfe

Aug 22, 2008, 01:22 PM

How is my comment at all elitist?
Because you think people who hold religious beliefs are inferior. You want to exclude people w/religious beliefs from being doctors yet at the same time you condemn religion for being exclusionary. Pot. Kettle. Black. I guess I should call you hypocritical as well.:p

Lethal

Ugg

Aug 22, 2008, 01:37 PM

Because you think people who hold religious beliefs are inferior. You want to exclude people w/religious beliefs from being doctors yet at the same time you condemn religion for being exclusionary. Pot. Kettle. Black. I guess I should call you hypocritical as well.:p

Lethal

Those who ignore history...

The history of medicine is filled with those whose prejudices, or if you will "beliefs" caused the deaths of many. Do you really want to see the practice of medicine returned to an elitist system where only those whose "beliefs" mirror the doctors' beliefs get good care?

I don't.

LethalWolfe

Aug 23, 2008, 03:40 PM

Those who ignore history...

The history of medicine is filled with those whose prejudices, or if you will "beliefs" caused the deaths of many. Do you really want to see the practice of medicine returned to an elitist system where only those whose "beliefs" mirror the doctors' beliefs get good care?

I don't.
Did you mean to quote me (or maybe you just misunderstood my post)? 'Cause in my previous posts I thought I made it pretty clear that I believed the doc in this case was in the wrong.

In the post you quoted I was just telling spamdumpster why I think he's come off as an elitist hypocrite.

Lethal

solvs

Aug 25, 2008, 02:13 AM

Good to see some non exteme-liberal views on here.
Extreme liberal? Are you kidding with this? Please. :rolleyes:

It's so disheartening to see people willing to throw away all of the freedoms and liberties afforded to us by the constitution and bill of rights just because it would make it less likely for certain people to feel offended by others.
Uh, no. As said, your rights end where mine begin. You talk a good game, but what about the rights of the patient? They are there to be treated professionally. If the doctor there can't do that, they may not have the option to go elsewhere, whether through immediate need or thanks to free market insurance that can tell someone where they have to go to be covered. Maybe that doctor needs to find another job. Considering they have to be licensed by the state, of course the gov can give guidelines for what they have to do. Now they can refuse treatment or adjust their care based on what's best for the patient, but not based on what they "believe". Medicine isn't about belief, it's about care for your patients. If they can't do that, especially if they base their care on who they like and who they don't (in this case gays), then the business that employs them should have the right to reprimand or fire them. By your own reasoning they should have that right, which is what's at issue here.

Something I've come to accept lately... Many people only care about our rights and freedoms until the ones being taken away are the ones they hold most dear. If it doesn't affect them directly, well then... "who gives a damn!" People refuse to see the big picture, and instead look for instant gratification and the easy way out.
This has nothing to do with any of us, nor are any of us personally involved (and most of us aren't even affected) but you seem to want to push yourself into it, and bring in abortion and euthanasia, which has nothing to do with this at all.

In any job there is, I would hope that employees don't just "do what they're told."
If they can't do their jobs, shouldn't they not have them? They can't pick and choose who to help. They have to help everyone, because it's about the patients' rights. Not their "core beliefs". And don't the businesses (like hospitals) have the right to hold them to that standard, or do the doctors beliefs trump the hospitals, patients, and govs?

I would hope they do a gut check before doing anything questionable and ask themselves whether they think it is "right."
Right for the patient, not themselves.

Depending on what they decide, their employer can make a decision on whether or not that individual should stay employed there.
Which is part of what we're talking about, especially since the patient is the customer and the gov is one of their employers if they're licensed and especially if they take gov money, which most do.

In the event that it is a private practice, they have the right to run it how they see fit.
In the event they take Medicare or Medicaid, or any gov subsidies, and are licensed by the gov, shouldn't they have to abide by gov regulations that are there to protect us all?

The government should have NO SAY.
So you don't believe in any gov guidelines and rules? Because people have laws to protect the greater good. Shouldn't businesses as well?

The bottom line, is that it's not the role of government to determine morality.
It's not the role of the Doctor either.

We are living in a free society, not a communist state.
More ridiculous slippery sloping, and claims of impending communism. :rolleyes:

Too often people just choose to follow what ever is popular, and never really think deeply about what they KNOW is right/wrong.
Or in this case someone let their bias get in the way of their responsibility to their patients, which seems like it would be wrong.

I hope you don't raise your kids to be "yes men" and to do everything the government tells them to. We all need to question authority, be independent, and stand for something real. Life, love, and liberty!
What does this have to do with anything? :confused:

That the government should MANDATE that he does it because he is a physician and physicians don't turn service away from anybody. The public should get the best care possible!
How ironic. No one is mandating that a physician has to kill anyone. Actually, euthanasia is illegal in most places, and doctors are forbidden from performing it even if they wanted to, if they thought it best for the patient. We should get the best care possible, which is why the gov is saying a doctor doesn't get to choose who he can help based on things like sexual orientation. How are you not getting this?

here is my question. If if is an elective surgery, or procedure then why the hell would you want some one doing it who does not want to do it for X reason.
You wouldn't, but the company that employs them, including the gov in some cases, also should have the right to not continue their employment if they can't do the job without fear of being sued for religious persecution.

skunk

Aug 25, 2008, 02:22 AM

You wouldn't, but the company that employs them, including the gov in some cases, also should have the right to not continue their employment if they can't do the job without fear of being sued for religious persecution.Except that according to the law they could not be sued for religious persecution, only for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

solvs

Aug 25, 2008, 04:28 AM

Except that according to the law they could not be sued for religious persecution, only for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

I meant that if a doctor were to refuse to help someone because of their sexual orientation using only their religion as a reason, the company or hospital they work for should have the right to reprimand or fire them for not doing their jobs without fear of being sued by the doctor for discrimination.

Iscariot

Aug 25, 2008, 05:17 AM

I meant that if a doctor were to refuse to help someone because of their sexual orientation using only their religion as a reason, the company or hospital they work for should have the right to reprimand or fire them for not doing their jobs without fear of being sued by the doctor for discrimination.

It's kind of ridiculous that that even has to be worried about. This seems pretty cut and dry to me: if aspects of your life, be they physical or mental, prevent you from fulfilling any aspect of your employment then you are not fit for that employment. Employees answer to their employers, and in the case of doctors, that's the state on behalf of the public. It's not discrimination if an employee is fired for being unable or unwilling to do their job.

solvs

Aug 25, 2008, 05:24 AM

It's kind of ridiculous that that even has to be worried about.

You're not American, it does. :o

Iscariot

Aug 25, 2008, 08:27 AM

You're not American, it does. :o

Yes, and that's what scares the Iced Tea out of me. We currently have a Conservative parliament, and they like to take their cues from South of the border. We're already working on our very own DMCA! I'm so proud.

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 08:41 AM

Yes, and that's what scares the Iced Tea out of me. We currently have a Conservative parliament, and they like to take their cues from South of the border. We're already working on our very own DMCA! I'm so proud.

DMCA? What is that?:o

Tosser

Aug 25, 2008, 08:52 AM

DMCA? What is that?:o

From Leopards inbuilt dictionary:

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (abbr.: DMCA)
a 1998 U.S. law intended to update copyright law for electronic commerce and electronic content providers. It criminalizes the circumvention of electronic and digital copyright protection systems.

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 09:12 AM

From Leopards inbuilt dictionary:

Gotcha- thanks.

fivepoint

Aug 25, 2008, 12:51 PM

A lot of people in this thread need a refresher course on the role of government. What it should be, and what it SHOULDN'T be.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

hulugu

Aug 25, 2008, 02:01 PM

A lot of people in this thread need a refresher course on the role of government. What it should be, and what it SHOULDN'T be.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Throwing Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution doesn't make your point nearly as succinctly as you think.

Doctors are licensed by the States, which they are allowed to do under the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution only limits the power of the states in a few ways, specifically in Article 1, Section 10. However, you should also take a look at Article 4.

Otherwise, states are free to create Medical Practice Acts that include provisions for licensing and censure.

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 02:53 PM

Throwing Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution doesn't make your point nearly as succinctly as you think.

Doctors are licensed by the States, which they are allowed to do under the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution only limits the power of the states in a few ways, specifically in Article 1, Section 10. However, you should also take a look at Article 4.

Otherwise, states are free to create Medical Practice Acts that include provisions for licensing and censure.

That must be some other Constitution! :D Here, we can discriminate as much as we want! The is the USA dammit! ;)

hulugu

Aug 25, 2008, 03:04 PM

That must be some other Constitution! :D Here, we can discriminate as much as we want! The is the USA dammit! ;)

Oh. Sorry, I always do that.

Of note, the phrase "free market" does not appear in the Constitution.

skunk

Aug 25, 2008, 04:05 PM

Of note, the phrase "free market" does not appear in the Constitution.Oh yes it does, it's right there next to "under God".

Peterkro

Aug 25, 2008, 04:11 PM

Oh yes it does, it's right there next to "under God".

"under God Inc." surely.

hulugu

Aug 25, 2008, 06:21 PM

Oh yes it does, it's right there next to "under God".

"under God Inc." surely.

Anybody ever see Constantine? One of the best parts of the movie was the notion that Hell had its own version of the Bible. Maybe that's not the only document....

iJohnHenry

Aug 25, 2008, 07:41 PM

For my first entrée into this Forum, I give you:

When his/her patient walks in the door.

If he/she cannot do that, than find another line of work.

imac/cheese

Aug 26, 2008, 09:02 AM

I feel that no one should be turned away from a doctor's office for medical care based on their sexual orientation.

I guess my question with this situation is this: Are doctors performing AI supposed to make some kind of judgement about people they give the procedure to or can anyone with the money get the procedure? Do the doctors just perform the procedure or do they counsel and advise their patients and make a decision about whether they feel the procedure would be the best option for the patients? Do doctors evaluate a person's/couple's ability to parent a child before the AI? I really have no idea about the procedure, so I can't answer the question, but if a doctor is required to make that judgement, I don't see how you mandate a judgement that we expect our doctors to make with a court decision. That being said, this doctor stated that he refused the patient because she was a lesbian which is discrimination. If he had said that he refused the patient because he didn't think she would be a good parent could she have won the lawsuit?

skunk

Aug 26, 2008, 11:34 AM

That being said, this doctor stated that he refused the patient because she was a lesbian which is discrimination. If he had said that he refused the patient because he didn't think she would be a good parent could she have won the lawsuit?Maybe, but if the doctor said that he refused the patient because he didn't think she would be a good parent, would he have had to say why he reached that conclusion?

hulugu

Aug 26, 2008, 05:05 PM

Maybe, but if the doctor said that he refused the patient because he didn't think she would be a good parent, would he have had to say why he reached that conclusion?

Well, the important point is for the state board to review the case.

r.j.s

Aug 26, 2008, 10:08 PM

Maybe, but if the doctor said that he refused the patient because he didn't think she would be a good parent, would he have had to say why he reached that conclusion?

Are the doctors even allowed to make that call?

Dmac77

Aug 27, 2008, 07:09 AM

Artificial insemination isn't a life or death situation, and IMO a doctor should be able to refuse service based on religious/personal beliefs as long as it isn't going to kill someone. This is going way to far, telling someone that they can't consider there own personal beliefs when doing there job. I'm sorry but some devout christians believe that aiding a gay couple in having a child will cause them to go hell, and who's to say that this doctor isn't afraid of eternal damnation. And unfortunately our society is bigoted towards gays and lesbians, and I can't help but think of the ridicule that the child would go through in school for having two moms or dads.

Don

Pittsax

Aug 27, 2008, 08:20 AM

Artificial insemination isn't a life or death situation, and IMO a doctor should be able to refuse service based on religious/personal beliefs as long as it isn't going to kill someone. This is going way to far, telling someone that they can't consider there own personal beliefs when doing there job.
No, it's not going too far. If your personal beliefs will interfere with doing your job on a consistent basis, then you shouldn't have that job. This isn't about someone who takes issue with the procedure they are performing. They take issue with the PATIENT. If you're a doctor, and you have an issue with a particular procedure (for instance, abortion) then you don't put yourself in a position to do that procedure. That doesn't mean you can't be a doctor, just not one who is going to perform abortions. That's not what this is about though. This is about doctors deciding who is worthy of treatment and who is not. That's discrimination, and that's wrong. Period.

I'm sorry but some devout christians believe that aiding a gay couple in having a child will cause them to go hell, and who's to say that this doctor isn't afraid of eternal damnation. And unfortunately our society is bigoted towards gays and lesbians, and I can't help but think of the ridicule that the child would go through in school for having two moms or dads.
Don
Again, if you are so concerned about the eternal consequences of doing the job you have been hired for, then you shouldn't have taken it in the first place.

Dmac77

Aug 27, 2008, 08:23 AM

No, it's not going too far. If your personal beliefs will interfere with doing your job on a consistent basis, then you shouldn't have that job. This isn't about someone who takes issue with the procedure they are performing. They take issue with the PATIENT. If you're a doctor, and you have an issue with a particular procedure (for instance, abortion) then you don't put yourself in a position to do that procedure. That doesn't mean you can't be a doctor, just not one who is going to perform abortions. That's not what this is about though. This is about doctors deciding who is worthy of treatment and who is not. That's discrimination, and that's wrong. Period.

Again, if you are so concerned about the eternal consequences of doing the job you have been hired for, then you shouldn't have taken it in the first place.

Ok, so with your logic, I (a male) can go to an OBGYN for my yearly sports physical and sue them if they don't examine me.

Don

nbs2

Aug 27, 2008, 08:57 AM

Maybe, but if the doctor said that he refused the patient because he didn't think she would be a good parent, would he have had to say why he reached that conclusion?

I expect if there was any evidence that his conclusion was founded on "protected" principles, then he would. Otherwise, I don't believe so. If my wife's OBGYN had refused to accept her (or had dropped her - but there are more rules there to ensure patient health) because I'm an attorney, they could have simply stated that they would no longer see her. Only if there was some evidence, however weak, to support a protected claim, would they have to reveal that my profession affected their decision.

Pittsax

Aug 27, 2008, 09:28 AM

Ok, so with your logic, I (a male) can go to an OBGYN for my yearly sports physical and sue them if they don't examine me.

Don
Um, no. Because where in the job description for an OB/GYN does it include performing male physicals?

atszyman

Aug 27, 2008, 09:36 AM

hulugu

Aug 27, 2008, 06:42 PM

Artificial insemination isn't a life or death situation, and IMO a doctor should be able to refuse service based on religious/personal beliefs as long as it isn't going to kill someone. This is going way to far, telling someone that they can't consider there own personal beliefs when doing there job. I'm sorry but some devout christians believe that aiding a gay couple in having a child will cause them to go hell, and who's to say that this doctor isn't afraid of eternal damnation. And unfortunately our society is bigoted towards gays and lesbians, and I can't help but think of the ridicule that the child would go through in school for having two moms or dads.

Don

First, whether or not a procedure is part of a "life or death" situation is a red herring. Doctors are supposed to protect their patients' rights regardless of their own personal beliefs. There's lots of sticky ground here, but that's why we have Boards of Review.

Frankly, if a 'devout' Christian feels that doing their job will damn them to hell, they should consider their job a worthy price for protecting their eternal soul from damnation.

Simply put, sometimes a person's actions will have consequences.

The last sentence is another red herring, the doctor who refused to do this procedure probably wasn't thinking about how this future child might be traumatized by a school bully.

mactastic

Aug 27, 2008, 06:46 PM

Artificial insemination isn't a life or death situation, and IMO a doctor should be able to refuse service based on religious/personal beliefs as long as it isn't going to kill someone. This is going way to far, telling someone that they can't consider there own personal beliefs when doing there job. I'm sorry but some devout christians believe that aiding a gay couple in having a child will cause them to go hell, and who's to say that this doctor isn't afraid of eternal damnation. And unfortunately our society is bigoted towards gays and lesbians, and I can't help but think of the ridicule that the child would go through in school for having two moms or dads.

Don
Would you say that a Muslim woman being told she has to remove her head covering to work in a salon is "going way to far" too? Should she be able to sue for damages if she is fired for refusing to abrogate her religious beliefs?

skunk

Aug 27, 2008, 06:48 PM

the doctor who refused to do this procedure probably wasn't thinking about how this future child might be traumatized by a school bully.I disagree. The doctor probably knew exactly how the child might be traumatized, since he would be aware deep down of how the prejudices he inculcated in his own children would be expressed.

mactastic

Aug 27, 2008, 06:54 PM

I disagree. The doctor probably knew exactly how the child might be traumatized, since he would be aware deep down of how the prejudices he inculcated in his own children would be expressed.
Reminds me of this tool (http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080820/UPDATES01/80820016)... violating girls just to warn them what it might possibly be like to be violated.

For their own good of course.

iJohnHenry

Aug 27, 2008, 06:59 PM

CalBoy

Aug 28, 2008, 12:24 AM

Artificial insemination isn't a life or death situation, and IMO a doctor should be able to refuse service based on religious/personal beliefs as long as it isn't going to kill someone.

Separating bus seats based on skin color isn't going to kill anyone either. Does that make it ok?

This is going way to far, telling someone that they can't consider there own personal beliefs when doing there job.

That's the problem, the doctors were not doing their jobs.

I'm sorry but some devout christians believe that aiding a gay couple in having a child will cause them to go hell, and who's to say that this doctor isn't afraid of eternal damnation.

I'm sorry, but if anyone feels that way, they shouldn't be in that line of work.

Suppose for a moment that the doctor plays football. Should he be afraid of eternal damnation since touching the skin of a dead pig is against the word of the Bible?

Suppose the doctor has a daughter; should he sell her into slavery as per the Bible? Does the Bible's word make it ok?

What if the doctor practices his line of work on a Sunday; should he be put to death?

Suppose the doctor gardens during his off time. If he plants two different crops side-by-side, should he be stoned to death by his town? Clearly as a Bible-fearing man, he would want to be stoned to death n'est-ce pas?

Finally, suppose the doctor wears clothing made from two different threads (a cotton-polyester blend if you will). Should he be burned to death?

And because I feel it's important to always cite sources, I suggest you watch this short West Wing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI) clip.

And unfortunately our society is bigoted towards gays and lesbians, and I can't help but think of the ridicule that the child would go through in school for having two moms or dads.

No offense, but that's the biggest pile of BS I've ever read. Kids are very adaptive, and they take on these things as if they are no big deal. I taught 9 and 10 year-olds this summer, and they have a remarkable ability to adapt to new situations and accept people for who they are. One little girl shared her personal story (with a class of 7 others and myself) about her two lesbian aunts, one of whom has children with her wife. The only person who would be riddiculed would be, as Bob Dylan once sang,

"he that gets hurt, will be he who has stalled..."

Ok, so with your logic, I (a male) can go to an OBGYN for my yearly sports physical and sue them if they don't examine me.

No, you've confused what the case is about. The doctors in question perform artificial inseminations as their primary occupation. They perform these procedures on a regular and consistent basis, and for some reason, they chose to refuse to treat someone solely on the basis of sexual orientation, which is not only illegal by California statute, but also morally despicable.

An OBGYN does not treat male patients and this is not what is expected of his particular job. It is expected that a fertility doctor perform artificial insemination.

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 12:30 AM

Would you say that a Muslim woman being told she has to remove her head covering to work in a salon is "going way to far" too? Should she be able to sue for damages if she is fired for refusing to abrogate her religious beliefs?

No, It's not reasonable to think that god will spite you for working with a person of another religion, or for not making them be like you. But almost every major religion condemns homosexuality, I'm not saying it's right or even logical for churches to do this.

Don

Separating bus seats based on skin color isn't going to kill anyone either. Does that make it ok?

That's the problem, the doctors were not doing their jobs.

I'm sorry, but if anyone feels that way, they shouldn't be in that line of work.

Suppose for a moment that the doctor plays football. Should he be afraid of eternal damnation since touching the skin of a dead pig is against the word of the Bible?

Suppose the doctor has a daughter; should he sell her into slavery as per the Bible? Does the Bible's word make it ok?

What if the doctor practices his line of work on a Sunday; should he be put to death?

Suppose the doctor gardens during his off time. If he plants two different crops side-by-side, should he be stoned to death by his town? Clearly as a Bible-fearing man, he would want to be stoned to death n'est-ce pas?

Finally, suppose the doctor wears clothing made from two different threads (a cotton-polyester blend if you will). Should he be burned to death?

And because I feel it's important to always cite sources, I suggest you watch this short West Wing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI) clip.

No offense, but that's the biggest pile of BS I've ever read. Kids are very adaptive, and they take on these things as if they are no big deal. I taught 9 and 10 year-olds this summer, and they have a remarkable ability to adapt to new situations and accept people for who they are. One little girl shared her personal story (with a class of 7 others and myself) about her two lesbian aunts, one of whom has children with her wife. The only person who would be riddiculed would be, as Bob Dylan once sang,

"he that gets hurt, will be he who has stalled..."

No, you've confused what the case is about. The doctors in question perform artificial inseminations as their primary occupation. They perform these procedures on a regular and consistent basis, and for some reason, they chose to refuse to treat someone solely on the basis of sexual orientation, which is not only illegal by California statute, but also morally despicable.

An OBGYN does not treat male patients and this is not what is expected of his particular job. It is expected that a fertility doctor perform artificial insemination.

I don't think that anyone should have to do something against their moral foundations just to keep their job. I'm not saying that what the doctor did is right, but it's against his morals/beliefs for a gay couple to have a child.

Don

EricNau

Aug 28, 2008, 12:35 AM

I don't think that anyone should have to do something against their moral foundations just to keep their job. I'm not saying that what the doctor did is right, but it's against his morals/beliefs for a gay couple to have a child.

Don
Luckily we live in a country where religion is no excuse for discrimination. If doing your job in a non-discriminatory manner interferes with your religion, I'd say you picked the wrong career.

CalBoy

Aug 28, 2008, 12:39 AM

I don't think that anyone should have to do something against their moral foundations just to keep their job.

I'm not ready to yield the fact that being a bigoted jackass is morality in any sense of the term. There's no morality in denying people equal treatment and dignity. You might be better off saying that the doctor was asked to choose between his religious convictions and his job, which would be a more accurate statement.

And let's be clear here, he isn't being forced to choose this line of work and he knew what it entailed before entering the profession. This isn't against his 'moral' foundation as it is against his personal desire to be a bigot.

I'm not saying that what the doctor did is right, but it's against his morals/beliefs for a gay couple to have a child.

So does that mean he's going to actively crusade against this? Does he go into the night and steal children from gay parents?

Suppose the doctor felt that treating black patients was against his religious beliefs. Should he be allowed to refuse treatment to black patients? What about if it was white patients that the doctor didn't like?

And please watch that clip I linked; it's really a good one.

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 01:14 AM

Luckily we live in a country where religion is no excuse for discrimination. If doing your job in a non-discriminatory manner interferes with your religion, I'd say you picked the wrong career.

OK, then what would you say about muslim taxi drivers complaining about the Minneapolis airport not having foot baths, and threatening to sue because of it?

EDIT: @CalBoy- IT's an elective operation, the doctor has a right to refuse service to anyone he likes IMO. If the patient would die without the operation I would say the doctor should have to preform the procedure.

Don

hulugu

Aug 28, 2008, 01:17 AM

I don't think that anyone should have to do something against their moral foundations just to keep their job. I'm not saying that what the doctor did is right, but it's against his morals/beliefs for a gay couple to have a child.

Don

An employer should be willing to take reasonable steps and make allowances for their employees religious belief. However, when their employee's belief is incompatible with the duties of the job, the employee should choose between working in that field or their faith.

We'll use CalBoy's example of the football. Let's say we have a wide receiver in the NFL, who over the course of his down-time decides to become a devout Muslim. He cannot touch the skin of a pig. (We'll ignore, for the sake of argument that footballs aren't pigskin anymore). How can this player expect to continue his job of catching a football when it interferes with his faith?
He can't, either he's a football player or his a devout Muslim, but he cannot be both.
Thus, a AI physician cannot follow both his duties and then discriminate against his patients based on their sexuality.

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 01:22 AM

An employer should be willing to take reasonable steps and make allowances for their employees religious belief. However, when their employee's belief is incompatible with the duties of the job, the employee should choose between working in that field or their faith.

We'll use CalBoy's example of the football. Let's say we have a wide receiver in the NFL, who over the course of his down-time decides to become a devout Muslim. He cannot touch the skin of a pig. (We'll ignore, for the sake of argument that footballs aren't pigskin anymore). How can this player expect to continue his job of catching a football when it interferes with his faith?
He can't, either he's a football player or his a devout Muslim, but he cannot be both.
Thus, a AI physician cannot follow both his duties and then discriminate against his patients based on their sexuality.

I disagree. Doctors should be allowed to selectively chose their patients when it comes to elective procedures (plastic surgery, AI, etc.). Also, who is to say that this doctor doesn't think that these lesbians would be unfit parents, and it's only a coincidence that they are lesbians?

Don

Iscariot

Aug 28, 2008, 01:28 AM

IT's an elective operation, the doctor has a right to refuse service to anyone he likes IMO. If the patient would die without the operation I would say the doctor should have to preform the procedure.

Well then it's a good thing that legal decisions are made on logic and precedence, and not your opinion of who is and isn't entitled to medical service.

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 01:38 AM

Well then it's a good thing that legal decisions are made on logic and precedence, and not your opinion of who is and isn't entitled to medical service.

10 years ago this case would have been thrown out of court, people shouldn't have to change with the times if they don't want to in America. Next thing we know, people are going to sue if AI doctors refuse to inseminate a sister with her brothers sperm, and if it happens in california I wouldn't be surprised if they would win. I'm confident that the case will be heard by the Supreme Court and the decision will be overturned, which it should be. Doctors should be allowed to refuse service in non life threatening situations.

Don

hulugu

Aug 28, 2008, 01:40 AM

I disagree. Doctors should be allowed to selectively chose their patients when it comes to elective procedures (plastic surgery, AI, etc.). Also, who is to say that this doctor doesn't think that these lesbians would be unfit parents, and it's only a coincidence that they are lesbians?

Don

Doctors can "choose" their medical patients. They can choose based on ability to pay, they can choose based on medical and psychological analysis in order to ascertain a patient's ability to cope with a procedure. For AI, the doctor could require the couple seek counseling and require some other kind of assessments of their ability to parent. AFAIK, the doctor didn't refuse treatment for any valid reasons, but did it because he didn't like that his patients were lesbians. This is wrong.

Offering up to coincidences is also a red herring, you have previously stated that doctors have the right to discriminate against their patients based on a religious belief. Thus, whether or not he did it because they were lesbians or green-footed boobies doesn't matter. The argument should be, can doctor's discriminate against their patients based on their faith?

A question, what if the doctor refused to treat a Mormon couple? Would your defenses of this doctor's actions be a full-throated if a man of faith discriminated against someone of a different, if relatively similar faith?

...Next thing we know, people are going to sue if AI doctors refuse to inseminate a sister with her brothers sperm...

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It relies on a specific assumption can only be inferred, not known between two data points. Try again.

Also, you keep saying that doctors should be allowed to refuse service. But, why. What's your logic?

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 01:43 AM

Doctors can "choose" their medical patients. They can choose based on ability to pay, they can choose based on medical and psychological analysis in order to ascertain a patient's ability to cope with a procedure. For AI, the doctor could require the couple seek counseling and require some other kind of assessments of their ability to parent. AFAIK, the doctor didn't refuse treatment for any valid reasons, but did it because he didn't like that his patients were lesbians. This is wrong.

Offering up to coincidences is also a red herring, you have previously stated that doctors have the right to discriminate against their patients based on a religious belief. Thus, whether or not he did it because they were lesbians or green-footed boobies doesn't matter. The argument should be, can doctor's discriminate against their patients based on their faith?

A question, what if the doctor refused to treat a Mormon couple? Would your defenses of this doctor's actions be a full-throated if a man of faith discriminated against someone of a different, if relatively similar faith?
If it goes against the doctors beliefs yes. I don't care if it isn't right, people should be allowed to refuse service because of their beliefs/ Believe me, these lesbians could have found another doctor, they just want some money to go with their baby.

Don

hulugu

Aug 28, 2008, 01:47 AM

If it goes against the doctors beliefs yes. I don't care if it isn't right, people should be allowed to refuse service because of their beliefs...

So, you think it's wrong. It's also unlawful, so why do you keep answering in the affirmative? If you think it's wrong and I think it's wrong, why should a doctor do it?

Believe me, these lesbians could have found another doctor, they just want some money to go with their baby....

This is irrelevant to the argument at best. Keep trying.

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 01:50 AM

So, you think it's wrong. It's also unlawful, so why do you keep answering in the affirmative? If you think it's wrong and I think it's wrong, why should a doctor do it?

This is irrelevant to the argument at best. Keep trying.

No I won't keep trying. All they did is try to get some money for themselves. Plus, with the amount of bigotry towards homosexuals today, I don't think that a child in a homosexual family would be safe, therefor rendering the parents unfit. That wouldn't be an issue if people weren't bigoted though.

Don

bartelby

Aug 28, 2008, 01:52 AM

I don't think that a child in a homosexual family would be safe, therefor rendering the parents unfit. That wouldn't be an issue if people weren't bigoted though.

Don

Erm.

So you're a bigot?

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 01:56 AM

Erm.

So you're a bigot?

No, I'm just stating a sad fact that the child would not be safe because of bigotry. Do NOT ever say that I'm bigoted towards homosexuals. My cousin (a marine) is gay, and lost all of his GI benefits after being outed, even though he was shot in Iraq. I just think that doctors should be able to refuse service when not in a life or death circumstance.

Don

LethalWolfe

Aug 28, 2008, 01:59 AM

If it goes against the doctors beliefs yes. I don't care if it isn't right, people should be allowed to refuse service because of their beliefs/
So if a black couple walked in and the doctor told them to leave because he treats people not porch monkies you'd be okay w/that because he's just adhering to his belief that black people are an inferior to white people? I mean, hey, he's just an old school doc that grew up when negros knew their place and it's America, man, no one should have to change w/the times if they don't want to right? 1956 forever! A time before the gov'ment came in and started forcing that Civil Rights crap down everyone's throat.

Lethal

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 02:01 AM

So if a black couple walked in and the doctor told them to leave because he treats people not porch monkies you'd be okay w/that because he's just adhering to his belief that black people are an inferior to white people? I mean, hey, he's just an old school doc that grew up when negros knew their place and it's America, man, no one should have to change w/the times if they don't want to right? 1956 forever! A time before the gov'ment came in and started forcing that Civil Rights crap down everyone's throat.

Lethal

No I wouldn't think that it's right, but I don't think that he should have to service anyone he doesn't want to. Not that it would be right for anyone to do so.

Don

skunk

Aug 28, 2008, 02:06 AM

No I wouldn't think that it's right, but I don't think that he should have to service anyone he doesn't want to. Not that it would be right for anyone to do so.I'm afraid being a doctor entails occasionally getting your hands dirty.

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 02:10 AM

I'm afraid being a doctor entails occasionally getting your hands dirty.

Like I said, this wouldn't have flown 10 years ago, and people shouldn't have to change with the times. The lesbians do not require a child, they could live without one, or they could go to another AI doctor.

Don

skunk

Aug 28, 2008, 02:12 AM

Like I said, this wouldn't have flown 10 years ago, and people shouldn't have to change with the times. The lesbians do not require a child, they could live without one, or they could go to another AI doctor.The doctor could find another career.

hulugu

Aug 28, 2008, 02:13 AM

Erm.

So you're a bigot?

That's not a fair question.

No I won't keep trying. All they did is try to get some money for themselves....

You don't know this. And, I think this remains irrelevant to the discussion. If the doctor fell into this evil lesbian scheme, well sucks for him for being such a mark. Let's continue.

...Plus, with the amount of bigotry towards homosexuals today, I don't think that a child in a homosexual family would be safe, therefor rendering the parents unfit. That wouldn't be an issue if people weren't bigoted though.

Don

No, I'm just stating a sad fact that the child would not be safe because of bigotry. Do NOT ever say that I'm bigoted towards homosexuals. My cousin (a marine) is gay, and lost all of his GI benefits after being outed, even though he was shot in Iraq. I just think that doctors should be able to refuse service when not in a life or death circumstance.

Don

First. Let me say, I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. That he was wounded and has lost his benefits because of the stupid "Don't Ask..." policy—a perfect example of the axiom, compromise is when everyone is unhappy—is simply appalling. And, I think this is where your argument comes from.

That gay people might be discriminated against is an interesting theory of why the doctor refused service, but ultimately, I think it's a reach. The doctor, I believe, was thinking about why he didn't like the couple's sexuality and not the baby's future. However, I would also say that a child born today with lesbian parents would be one of thousands and considering that our society has gone from the Stonewall Riots to today, I think this is a consideration that will dissipate with time.

Furthermore, I would argue that for our society to refuse to move because of a few loud bigots would be a moral failure. We beat them, not by allowing their refusals and their caricatures to go unanswered, rather we bring them to light.

Unfortunately, I still don't see WHY you think doctors can refuse treatment to specific individuals because of race, creed, or sexuality. I understand refusing treatment for medical reasons. I understand refusing because of an inability to pay. I understand refusing because you think the patient might harm themselves. But, refusing because they're Mexican or Jewish or Gay is wrong.

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 02:14 AM

The doctor could find another career.

The doctor already paid for an education to be a doctor. The lesbians are just trying to create a scene.

Don

OutThere

Aug 28, 2008, 02:16 AM

hulugu

Aug 28, 2008, 02:16 AM

...that he should have to service anyone he doesn't want to....

...people shouldn't have to change with the times...

Again. Why?

Why?
Why?
Why?

Why?

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 02:17 AM

That's not a fair question.

You don't know this. And, I think this remains irrelevant to the discussion. If the doctor fell into this evil lesbian scheme, well sucks for him for being such a mark. Let's continue.

First. Let me say, I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. That he was wounded and has lost his benefits because of the stupid "Don't Ask..." policy—a perfect example of the axiom, compromise is when everyone is unhappy—is simply appalling. And, I think this is where your argument comes from.

That gay people might be discriminated against is an interesting theory of why the doctor refused service, but ultimately, I think it's a reach. The doctor, I believe, was thinking about why he didn't like the couple's sexuality and not the baby's future. However, I would also say that a child born today with lesbian parents would be one of thousands and considering that our society has gone from the Stonewall Riots to today, I think this is a consideration that will dissipate with time.

Furthermore, I would argue that for our society to refuse to move because of a few loud bigots would be a moral failure. We beat them, not by allowing their refusals and their caricatures to go unanswered, rather we bring them to light.

Unfortunately, I still don't see WHY you think doctors can refuse treatment to specific individuals because of race, creed, or sexuality. I understand refusing treatment for medical reasons. I understand refusing because of an inability to pay. I understand refusing because you think the patient might harm themselves. But, refusing because they're Mexican or Jewish or Gay is wrong.

I didn't say that it is right for the doctor to refuse service. I said that the doctor should have the right to. I just don't think that anyone should be forced to do something that would bother their conscience.

Don

skunk

Aug 28, 2008, 02:22 AM

I didn't say that it is right for the doctor to refuse service. I said that the doctor should have the right to. I just don't think that anyone should be forced to do something that would bother their conscience.So all laws are discretionary, are they? Should make for an interesting time. I feel bad about paying my taxes, bad about having to wear clothes, bad about not being able to run down a stupid pedestrian who is in my way. Should I be allowed to do all these things?

LethalWolfe

Aug 28, 2008, 02:23 AM

The doctor already paid for an education to be a doctor. The lesbians are just trying to create a scene.

Don
Just like Rosa Parks 'created a scene' instead of just moving to a different part of the bus, right?

Lethal

iBlue

Aug 28, 2008, 02:23 AM

bartelby

Aug 28, 2008, 02:24 AM

Make a religion of this and maybe so, eh?

The Church Of Skunk eh?

I Believe!!!!!
:D

hulugu

Aug 28, 2008, 02:28 AM

Allowing doctors to freely pick and choose their patients based on irrelevant factors is a bad precedent to set. Even if it didn't set off further discrimination, it sends the message that this sort of discrimination is acceptable under the guise of religious belief.

Absolutely. Think of the ridiculousness that we could endure if each doctor were allowed to choose their patients under such irrelevant factors. We could have a Japanese Optometrist who refuses to treat Koreans. A gay plastic surgeon might refuse to treat heterosexuals. A male Podiatrist who refuses female patients.

It is simple incompatible to the duty of a physician for him to refuse his patients based on these kinds of factors. I remain wholly unconvinced that doctors should be able to, like Bartleby the Scrivener say, "I prefer not to" when dealing with certain patients.

...bad about not being able to run down a stupid pedestrian who is in my way. Should I be allowed to do all these things?

Wait. You mean you can't try to run them down. That's why I got the Cattle Guard bumper for my Jeep.

Dmac77

Aug 28, 2008, 02:28 AM

So all laws are discretionary, are they? Should make for an interesting time. I feel bad about paying my taxes, bad about having to wear clothes, bad about not being able to run down a stupid pedestrian who is in my way. Should I be allowed to do all these things?

Just like Rosa Parks 'created a scene' instead of just moving to a different part of the bus, right?

Lethal

Make a religion of this and maybe so, eh?

(and where do I sign up?)

I'm not even going to continue commenting in this thread, because all of what I say is wrongly interpreted.

Don

PS-

@skunk- I have no problem with running down annoying pedestrians:D

skunk

Aug 28, 2008, 02:31 AM

I'm not even going to continue commenting in this thread, because all of what I say is wrongly interpreted.That's strange, because you have confirmed every interpretation with your ensuing posts. :confused:

LethalWolfe

Aug 28, 2008, 02:42 AM

I'm not even going to continue commenting in this thread, because all of what I say is wrongly interpreted.

I don't think any of it has been wrongly interpreted. You just don't like the parallels people are bring up.

Lethal

CalBoy

Aug 28, 2008, 10:22 AM

OK, then what would you say about muslim taxi drivers complaining about the Minneapolis airport not having foot baths, and threatening to sue because of it?

The lesbians aren't asking for public facilities to be built in order to accommodate their religious needs, and nor does a dirty foot prevent a taxi driver from driver a cab (in fact, it seems that filthiness is almost a requirement for most cabbies ;):p).

EDIT: @CalBoy- IT's an elective operation, the doctor has a right to refuse service to anyone he likes IMO. If the patient would die without the operation I would say the doctor should have to preform the procedure.

Yes, you already mentioned this, and I asked you about busses. Would you prefer another example? How about military service members? Should we have black pilots separated from white pilots since it doesn't put anyone in risk of life or limb?

If it goes against the doctors beliefs yes. I don't care if it isn't right, people should be allowed to refuse service because of their beliefs

Suppose for a moment that a doctor who has already accepted you as his patient decides that his religion doesn't believe in helping someone who has your characteristics (I don't know what you are demographically, but I assume young white male on the basis of your posts). Would you be willing to defend the actions of that doctor? Remember, you're not going to die as a result, so it's ok right?

Believe me, these lesbians could have found another doctor, they just want some money to go with their baby.

No, they couldn't have "found" another doctor because no other fertility clinics were covered in their insurance plan. The lesbians aren't after money; they simply want to be treated equally.

leekohler

Aug 28, 2008, 10:34 AM

No, I'm just stating a sad fact that the child would not be safe because of bigotry. Do NOT ever say that I'm bigoted towards homosexuals. My cousin (a marine) is gay, and lost all of his GI benefits after being outed, even though he was shot in Iraq. I just think that doctors should be able to refuse service when not in a life or death circumstance.

Don

Yeah- and yet you still like George Bush. :rolleyes:

The doctor already paid for an education to be a doctor. The lesbians are just trying to create a scene.

Don

Evidence please.

nbs2

Aug 28, 2008, 12:54 PM

No, they couldn't have "found" another doctor because no other fertility clinics were covered in their insurance plan. The lesbians aren't after money; they simply want to be treated equally.

Now, now, now. That they couldn't find another doctor because of insurance reasons is not an argument for lack of options. There is no legal guarantee that a doctor convenient to your location will accept your insurance.

So far as getting treatment, I believe that they would have been better served as individuals by prevailing upon the state board to punish the doctor and their insurance company to take its business elsewhere, before filing a suit. Doctors are wary of litigants, regardless of the reason for litigation.

They could find another doctor, if they really wanted to. That the doctor broke the law so far as protected classes go is a wholely different matter.

solvs

Sep 1, 2008, 10:57 PM

Also, who is to say that this doctor doesn't think that these lesbians would be unfit parents
That's not up to him to decide.

Next thing we know, people are going to sue if AI doctors refuse to inseminate a sister with her brothers sperm
I doubt it because that's illegal.

The lesbians do not require a child, they could live without one, or they could go to another AI doctor.
Why should they have to?

The lesbians are just trying to create a scene.
Or they just wanted a child. It's not up to the doctor to decide whether or not they can have one, especially based on such things. It's his job to perform this procedure. By refusing to do this for these people for this reason is discrimination. Pure and simple. And in that line of business, this is bound to happen, probably already has even if he didn't know it. If he has a problem with it, why do they have to suffer for his prejudice? He is the one in the wrong here, not them. All there is to it.

And nbs2, off topic I know, but your sig isn't accurate. While Obama did write "yes" under whether he would do the public finance thing or not, he also wrote in about a 250 word caveat describing what he meant. That he would not only attempt to pursue an agreement with the GOP candidate, which he tried to, but that what he meant also included small donations from individual donors as a mixture of several different sources. Mostly saying he wasn't going to get most of it from lobbyists and use 527s to get around the system. Ironically, McCain actually did flip flop on public financing, and was even sued over his illegal use of it to get a loan, then backing out, then saying he would use it again. While still getting lobbying money and using 527s, not even attempting to distance himself from them.

There is plenty to hit Obama over, like the FISA vote that was a flip flop, the public financing thing is not it (especially while ignoring McCain's).