Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation

Henrin · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

prometeus said:
No, I am still waiting for you to come up with something relevant and real. So far your rants are not even close.

All the bitching and moaning going on in this thread are based on the premise that people are owed someones labor or the falsehood that people serve the public. Saying that people are not owed the labor of others and no one serves the public is relevant to the nonsense reasoning people are giving.

roguenuke · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
I would think a doctor who knowingly and intentionally allows a patient to die for any reason would face some sort of penalty, wouldn't you?

Who says they would have to die to cause hardships for the person, their loved ones? What if their causing a delay in the refusal to see the patient leads to complications? What if that delay leads to requiring more extensive stay in a hospital, more bills? What if it causes people to not get the early diagnosis that would improve their chances?

Even with just these checkups, refusal of service could lead to someone having to either a) drive far out of their way to see a doctor that will take them as a patient only due to something like their sexuality or their parents' sexuality, or b) go outside their insurance network for a doctor that will see them, accept them, not due to the doctor having too many clients or not specializing in what they need, but rather only out of bigotry. Why shouldn't someone be compensated for discrimination that causes them measurable hardship?

prometeus · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

tres borrachos said:
I have no idea why you keep posting to me.

What are you talking about? This is, if you did not know a public bulletin board. Oh wait you know that because you say so ion your next sentence. As such I am not posting to you, but commenting on post made by you. Perhaps you should learn the difference.

I don't know where this "like or dislike" you came from.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This is a message board. I'm not posting to like or dislike people.

Nobody said you were. You are posting about a topic and it is a clear indication that you condone the bigotry that is the topic of this thread. You just lack the integrity to acknowledge it.

But feel free to post one more emotional post.

You are confused or just diverting, but hardly a surprise.

I'm not going to read it.

I do not give a crap about what you read.

I'm posting about the subject of this thread, which is a baby being seen by a doctor's partner because the doctor didn't want to work with the baby's gay parents. Happy Friday.

No the thread is about bigotry of a doctor who refused to see a 6 day old infant. Your posts indicate that such bigotry is acceptable to you. Happy Friday to you too and a great week end too.

clownboy · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
The baby at the center of this story got a wellness check from the other doctor in the same practice at the same time and on the same date and in the same location as the scheduled appointment with the original doctor.

Why does this thread keep going off the rails with hypotheticals?

Goes back to that asshole drama factor I think. Like recently quit non-smokers.

Lursa · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
What condition exactly is circumcisions, which is what I was referring to, dealing with?

His was a ridiculous objection. Circumcision does no harm. It may be painful but many procedures doctors perform are painful. Doesnt make the wrong or unethical, lol. Yeah, that injection was totally unethical! Give it to me on a spoon instead! lol. Oh, dont pierce my ears! It's unethical! :doh

Henrin · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
The baby at the center of this story got a wellness check from the other doctor in the same practice at the same time and on the same date and in the same location as the scheduled appointment with the original doctor.

Why does this thread keep going off the rails with hypotheticals?

Because one side of this debate always brings up ludicrous hypotheticals in these threads.

roguenuke · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
A HUMAN doctor. And this is yet another advantage to working in a medical GROUP. If you don't like the doctor, or the doctor doesn't like you, there are more doctors in the group. And again, what ****ed up parents want their child's doctor to be someone who objects to their lifestyle?

Not all doctors work in a group. Not all areas have that many doctors. Plus, it is just as likely in some places for all those doctors to feel the same way and all refuse certain people service.

Again, why not expect the doctor to be professional in their chosen profession and expect them to care for children of gay men and lesbians the same as they would children of opposite sex married and unmarried parents? This is their chosen profession. They need to put their personal feelings aside and do their damn job.

tres borrachos · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:
No, not in every state. I dont know about Michigan.

However it is clear from the OP, the doctor and the legal case, that it's based on *her stated* religious beliefs. Now...why are you going off on a tangent?

Is it your opinion she did it based on bigotry towards gays?

It isn't my "opinion" on anything. According to both the OP and her words she refused to see the baby because she doesn't approve of the parents' lifestyle choice. What are you disputing about that?

And are you angry because you don't want her to have religious beliefs, or you don't want her to not like gay people? I personally don't care what religion she observes, and I don't care who she likes. The baby got the care it needed.

clownboy · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
Who says they would have to die to cause hardships for the person, their loved ones? What if their causing a delay in the refusal to see the patient leads to complications? What if that delay leads to requiring more extensive stay in a hospital, more bills? What if it causes people to not get the early diagnosis that would improve their chances?

Even with just these checkups, refusal of service could lead to someone having to either a) drive far out of their way to see a doctor that will take them as a patient only due to something like their sexuality or their parents' sexuality, or b) go outside their insurance network for a doctor that will see them, accept them, not due to the doctor having too many clients or not specializing in what they need, but rather only out of bigotry. Why shouldn't someone be compensated for discrimination that causes them measurable hardship?

Except none of that strawman you just built actually happened.

SmokeAndMirrors · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
I don't care why a doctor in a group practice decides to ask another doctor to see a patient instead of her. Would the story have been different because the doctor asked her partner to see the baby because she didn't want to see the baby because the parents smelled bad? Because she doesn't like people with accents? Because the parents were too loud? Because there were 12 relatives from the trailer park who wanted to join the visit? Because she used to be married to one of the parent's brother? That's a rhetorical question, because the answer is "yes". You don't really care who saw the baby. Nobody does. What you care about I believe is that you don't like that this woman disapproves of the gay lifestyle. I get that.

No, it wouldn't be any different. No one likes dealing with people who smell bad or whatever. Should they just pass the buck infinitely, since no one likes people who smell bad, and thus no one gives them any care? And the accent example is just another example of discrimination -- incidentally, a type of discrimination immigrants are protected against, where women and gays (and apparently even the children of same) are apparently deamed unworthy of such protection.

The fact that you think it's so obviously ok to reject patients for any silly reason you like that it's a rhetorical question is disturbing.

roguenuke · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:
His was a ridiculous objection. Circumcision does no harm. It may be painful but many procedures doctors perform are painful. Doesnt make the wrong or unethical, lol. Yeah, that injection was totally unethical! Give it to me on a spoon instead! lol. Oh, dont pierce my ears! It's unethical! :doh

I agree. I don't have any issue with piercings or circumcisions, just as I don't have an issue with gender reassignment therapy/surgery. It doesn't truly do harm and it is their body.

tres borrachos · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
Goes back to that asshole drama factor I think. Like recently quit non-smokers.

I quit smoking in January 10 which is 1 week after I started on Chantix. And that was my choice for me and me alone. I won't ever become one of those asses that lecture people.

prometeus · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Hicup said:
May I ask you or anyone else for that matter, just exactly under what circumstances a person could not be a bigot for rejecting homosexual lifestyles? Under what circumstances would it be permissible for someone to object to sexual proclivity? Is someone a bigot, for example to avoid people that say, enjoy anal sex, or BDSM, or wife swapping, etc.. etc..? Would they too be bigoted? I'm just asking because if the answer is "well gee, I suppose someone not accepting of people that are into BDSM are not bigoted", then might I suggest that you slow down on the rhetoric that is purely designed to shame the person you're disagreeing with, and begin to debate the subject matter in a mature, more open way, and win with your ideas rather than your rhetoric.

Tim-

A fair question and in order to not haste into a flawed answer, I will reply a bit later. Thanks for your patience.

Henrin · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:
His was a ridiculous objection. Circumcision does no harm. It may be painful but many procedures doctors perform are painful. Doesnt make the wrong or unethical, lol. Yeah, that injection was totally unethical! Give it to me on a spoon instead! lol. Oh, dont pierce my ears! It's unethical! :doh

My brain is hurting from the stupidity of your post. The foreskin has more than a dozen functions from pleasure, lubrication, all the way to keeping the area disease and infection free. Why do you think the body would have extra parts that do nothing? Please research the topic before talking about it. Thank you.

sangha · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
I don't care why a doctor in a group practice decides to ask another doctor to see a patient instead of her. Would the story have been different because the doctor asked her partner to see the baby because she didn't want to see the baby because the parents smelled bad? Because she doesn't like people with accents? Because the parents were too loud? Because there were 12 relatives from the trailer park who wanted to join the visit? Because she used to be married to one of the parent's brother? That's a rhetorical question, because the answer is "yes". You don't really care who saw the baby. Nobody does. What you care about I believe is that you don't like that this woman disapproves of the gay lifestyle. I get that.

tb has to pretend the issue is "What doctor decided to see the patient?" and not "Why did the doctor decide to not see the patient?"

It's the same argument the segregationists used in Plessy v Ferguson - separate but equal is OK according right wingers

roguenuke · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
Except none of that strawman you just built actually happened.

Doesn't matter if it did happen, only that when we allow such policies that allow for people to discriminate, to reject patients solely on the basis of something like "I don't approve of the parents'", it can lead to the very thing I am talking about. And we have seen it happen in other issues.

Peter Grimm · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

prometeus said:
To be quite honest this did surprise me. For some reason I thought that educated people can and would rise above such blatant bigotry, but I guess that low life imbeciles exist in every walk of life.
This doctor refused to treat an infant because the parents are gay.
Lesbian couple says Michigan pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation | 7online.com

Who cares. There are literally thousands of pediatricians in Michigan, go to another one.

SmokeAndMirrors · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
No, the refusing doctor was NOT "medically wrong". And her reason could just as well been because the parents were daredevils, or professional beggars, or never bathed. The doctor couldn't face the parents' lifestyle, so the medical group provided another doctor that could to cover this patient.

You think doctors should be able to reject patients because they don't like the patient's job?

What is wrong with you?

sangha · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:
Your questions seems perfectly reasonable to me. I think we are talking about a principle here - do doctors have an obligation to treat patients without regard to their sexual orientation? If the answer is an unequivocal "NO!" then that answer applies in cases of emergency, i.e. in the ER, when there might not be another doctor within 100 miles, there might not be another doctor covered by the person's insurance, etc.

If the answer is, "No, but.... " then the relevant next question is 'what are the exceptions?' No, they're not obligated to in cases where the child is not at risk BUT would be in the ER. Or they would not be obligated so long as another doctor was available for this child, but if she was the only physician within 100 miles, she DOES have an obligation or at least a higher obligation to ignore sexual orientation of the parents. Etc.

I thought about it and in this case it worked out well for everyone, IMO. I wouldn't want to see a doctor who held me and/or my spouse in contempt in some ways. So the couple have a doctor who respects them and their child - all that's good. But the problem in saying it worked out fine here, so there is no issue with physicians declining to treat LGBT patients, is that if this is based on principle and not the results IN THIS CASE, then the principle has to apply when it will or could cause substantial harm to the couple or their child. Or else people should be willing to identify the exceptions to the principle.

So a doctor refusing to provide non-emergency treatment to a black child would be OK if the child suffered no substantial harm

Separate but equal is not equal.

tres borrachos · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, it wouldn't be any different. No one likes dealing with people who smell bad or whatever. Should they just pass the buck infinitely, since no one likes people who smell bad, and thus no one gives them any care? And the accent example is just another example of discrimination -- incidentally, a type of discrimination immigrants are protected against, where women and gays (and apparently even the children of same) are apparently deamed unworthy of such protection.

The fact that you think it's so obviously ok to reject patients for any silly reason you like that it's a rhetorical question is disturbing.

I don't have a problem with doctors in a group practice sharing responsibility for patients. I don't care about which hygienist in my dentist's group practice cleans my teeth every 6 months. They're on a rotation. I don't care which doctor has to see me if my own doctor is home sick. In other words, I don't go to doctors or dentists or any medical provider to be accepted or liked. I go to get care, and if I don't like the person, or I don't like the care, I go elsewhere. You seem to think I'm crazy because I don't share your outrage that this baby was seen by another doctor in a group practice. I don't.

prometeus · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Henrin said:
Yes, it is. Government is about force and has been about force for thousands of years.

So you are agains government? What it that government is of the people, for the people and by the people?

clownboy · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
Not all doctors work in a group. Not all areas have that many doctors. Plus, it is just as likely in some places for all those doctors to feel the same way and all refuse certain people service.

Again, why not expect the doctor to be professional in their chosen profession and expect them to care for children of gay men and lesbians the same as they would children of opposite sex married and unmarried parents? This is their chosen profession. They need to put their personal feelings aside and do their damn job.

But the case we're discussing they are a medical group. And you'd be hard pressed to look for a pediatric doctor these days who isn't part of a group or hospital staff.

And if you want robots to treat you you'll have to wait a generation or two. The matter in this case WAS handled professionally. The HUMAN doctor couldn't get past her objections to the parents' lifestyle and thus provided another doctor who could do the care on the same schedule.

And don't try to build yet another strawman about emergency care. Emergency care is governed by a whole nother set of professional rules and laws.

Henrin · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

prometeus said:
So you are agains government? What it that government is of the people, for the people and by the people?

There is no such thing as a government of the people, for the people and by the people. It's pretty awesome propaganda though.

tres borrachos · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
Doesn't matter if it did happen, only that when we allow such policies that allow for people to discriminate, to reject patients solely on the basis of something like "I don't approve of the parents'", it can lead to the very thing I am talking about. And we have seen it happen in other issues.

So the doctors who say "We are not accepting new patients" shouldn't be doing that, because you have a right to demand that a doctor sees you?

sangha · Feb 20, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

AliHajiSheik said:
Still a difference of opinion. In terms of this subject, that is exactly what people want.

You're still confused. The legal basis for laws is not a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of law

Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation

Henrin

roguenuke

prometeus

clownboy

Lursa

Tenacious

Henrin

roguenuke

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

clownboy

SmokeAndMirrors

roguenuke

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

prometeus

Henrin

sangha

roguenuke

Peter Grimm

SmokeAndMirrors

sangha

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

prometeus

clownboy

Henrin

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

sangha

Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation

Tenacious

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency