- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
You are obviously not reading my posts at all. I never said that.
However the point I'm trying to make is....what if it was an emergency situation? "Hypothetical" does not mean "without value." This incident happened...is it your position that it would never happen in a life or death situation?
No, it's not. I think we found the source of your confusion
Hopefully nowhere, jeeesus! The question is, though, if it were to happen and the doctor on duty refused treatment, would he be prosecuted if he used religion as his excuse? You know seeing as there is no anti-discrimination protections for gays in MI...
I recall, at some point in my DP history, using the example of "What if a doctor denied baby care because he didn't think the parents should have had a baby" as an intentionally absurd extension to people who are ok with doctors and pharmacologistis denying Plan B and permanent birth control procedures, another place where for some reason Americans allow doctors to refuse to do their job over their sanctimony.
So you think the laws are going to change? I don't.
I didn't say anything about being related to Plan B. I mentioned abortion because you said this:
unwanted pregnancies, and therefore either potentially insurmountable expense, or harm to the woman, potentially ending in death
And you also mentioned Plan B.
Where did the doctor tell the parents that they made her feel unclean?
Let's be clear, this wasn't about emergency care, heck this wasn't even a doctor's appointment for something wrong, it was a standard wellness check. Also, the child was immediately seen for the check by another doctor in the same group. The parents didn't even need to reschedule. They easily found another HMO to treat them going forward.
This is mountain out of molehill time.
What do those things have to do with abortion? They're reality regardless of what she does with it. And Plan B isn't an abortion.
Anyway, yes, I do expect the laws to change -- or rather the lack of laws protecting people from bigoted doctors, because we didn't use to have any issue with this, and therefore there's no laws about it at all in most cases.
You don't think that's the implication of saying he won't even treat a gay couple's child? Are you being intentionally dense?
I didn't say Plan B had anything to do with abortion. You mentioned Plan B and abortion in your post to me. I said I wasn't talking about Plan B and abortion, and you ask me if I'm being dense? FFS.
And really, what parent that's worth two ****s wants to have a doctor who is opposed to the choices they've made as people to be the main source of medical care for their precious child?
I'd love to be in a thread where the discussion is about policemen and firemen and doctors and other emergency responders refuse to help someone based on religious beliefs. That isn't this thread.
When I was a new mother, the relationship with my babies' doctor was huge to me. That's why we left one and moved to another when we didn't like the way she spoke to us and treated us when we asked a question. We didn't go to medical school - she did - so we asked for clarification of some medical term, and she was obnoxious and rude to us. We asked for our kids' records to be transferred to another practice after getting some recommendations from friends. It wasn't the end of the world. And it was the best thing for everyone.
I mentioned nothing about abortion. I mentioned the implications of pregnancies women are not prepared for, whether they birth or abort or even miscarry.
I notice you're still ignoring the clear implication here.
Actually, it is a discussion on what people choose to discuss in the thread.
And it's not just about an isolated incident...it should be obvious to you by now that many here believe it has broader implications for society. And that there are already precedents to use as examples. I used cops and firemen. I also used a logical hypothetical situation that could occur in a more dangerous context.
I also explained why it was important to examine it in broader context: to protect the doctors AND patients in the future.
If you choose not to discuss the OP with regards to those very relevant offshoots, then dont.
Translation: you got NOTHING lol
thats what we though
facts win again
I love these threads. It's like a big outrage parade, where some people wear their outrage finery for all to see, all the while trying to out-outrage the last person. ****ing hilarious!
Actually, it is a discussion on what people choose to discuss in the thread.
And it's not just about an isolated incident...it should be obvious to you by now that many here believe it has broader implications for society. And that there are already precedents to use as examples. I used cops and firemen. I also used a logical hypothetical situation that could occur in a more dangerous context.
I also explained why it was important to examine it in broader context: to protect the doctors AND patients in the future.
If you choose not to discuss the OP with regards to those very relevant offshoots, then dont.
Oh, so the "Plan B" debacle had nothing to do with pharmacists thinking it was an abortion inducing pill, and that wasn't in your mind when you posted about Plan B. Of course.
Okay, let me rephrase my post. I wasn't talking about Plan B.
There is no implication. If you believe this to be a terrible tragedy, fine. I don't. We will have to disagree.
I love these threads. It's like a big outrage parade, where some people wear their outrage finery for all to see, all the while trying to out-outrage the last person. ****ing hilarious!
Oh, their perception. Yes, I suppose it does. They're medically wrong, and they should be fired for refusing a service they claim to offer, however.
There is no implication in saying they can't see a child because the parents are gay? Ok then. Whatever beach is most comfortable for you to bury your head in.
Oh, okay. Then ask the people who want to discuss firemen and policemen and emergencies to discuss that, Lursa. I'm in a thread about a non-emergency situation. So I guess you just wasted your fingers with me because I'm not going off tangent with you.
............is it your position that it would never happen in a life or death situation?
Except there's no problem to discuss in this case in the first place. The child never was without care. ONE doctor in the group didn't like the parents' lifestyle, another doctor from the same group stepped in and provided care going forward. The lesbians just didn't like that someone might object to their lifestyle. The child's care had nothing to do with this. They should have just gotten a puppy. The idiot drama this poor kid is going to have to live with.
............is it your position that it would never happen in a life or death situation?
Oh, their perception. Yes, I suppose it does. They're medically wrong, and they should be fired for refusing a service they claim to offer, however.
There is no implication in saying they can't see a child because the parents are gay? Ok then. Whatever beach is most comfortable for you to bury your head in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?