Doctors' Religious Rights?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by CalBoy, Aug 20, 2008.

  1. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #1
    I meant to post this a couple days ago, but with work and such, I forgot:

    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.
     
  2. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    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.
     
  3. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #4
    Agreed.
     
  5. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #5
    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.
     
  6. heaven macrumors 6502a

    heaven

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    #6
    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.
     
  7. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #7
    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.
    Trouble is, that was the only clinic covered by her health care plan. What do you do then?
    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.
     
  8. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    My thoughts exactly.
     
  9. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    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.
     
  10. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #10
    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.
     
  11. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #11
    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.
     
  12. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #12
    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.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    Exactly. Please got be something else- like an televangelist. :mad:
     
  14. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #14
    Any doctor that denies a patient treatment because of who they **** should have their license yanked.
     
  15. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #15
    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. :eek:

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

    Agreed.
     
  16. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #16
    It certainly does, doesn't it? Meet double-edged sword.

    ~ CB
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Exactly. If you can't perform the duties of your job due to your religious faith, you need to find another job.
     
  18. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    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
     
  19. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #19
    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.
     
  20. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #20
    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
     
  21. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #21
    I believe the doctors are still receiving a payment of full market value for their services. :rolleyes:
    Yes, the freedom to be a bigot. I'm sure the Founding Fathers had that in mind.
     
  22. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    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
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    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.
     
  24. majordude macrumors 68020

    majordude

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Location:
    Hootersville
    #24
    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.
     
  25. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page