- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,847
- Reaction score
- 30,107
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
No, you didn't even take two seconds to look up protected clasess did you? Religion and race are protected by constitutional amendment, federally. And if you can't find ERA verbiage in any state's constitutions you just plain have not looked.
Do you understand what possibility means? Yes, it was possible that the child might not have been seen that day due to her refusal to see the child based on the sexual orientation of the parents. We don't know what she would have done had her colleague refused to see the baby, whether due to already being booked or agreeing with the first doctor. There is nothing in the story that says that the doctor would have seen the child had the other doctor refused. But along with this, the doctor had already agreed to take the baby as a new patient of hers (prenatal), and even if she had seen the child this time, the possibility does exist that had she simply told them that that was the only appointment she could see them, she couldn't possibly know that the couple could then find someone else to see them, again whether due to other doctors having too may patients or due to their own religious objections.
Possibility is different than probability.
Oh lord, please read the thread first. Everything you just brought up has already been answered, multiple times.
And?
Okay, let's play the hypothetical game. I want to discuss this slippery slope. Barack Obama has forced me to buy health insurance or else I have to pay a penalty. Before he leaves office, he's going to force me to buy a hybrid car or pay a penalty, because he can. A mentally compromised kid whose mother had guns went to a school and shot some innocent children with her guns, so we should take guns away from everyone with kids because this could now become a weekly occurrence.
That was fun.
So is this thread about hypotheticals and what may happen? Then you're right, I'm in the wrong thread. I'm posting about the very minor incident here that has people all jacked up.
Yes, I do know how they work. I'm in one. We still have a regularly assigned doctor for us. Just as these parents went to this doctor and she agreed to be the pediatrician for their baby. While it was always possible that she might not be available for them, this was not the case here. She is refusing to see them due to a completely different reason.
Plus, you have just essentially destroyed her own reasoning here. If they were likely to see other doctors, then how would she develop a necessary doctor/patient/parent relationship with them? Why would it be necessary if she wasn't likely to see them or was going to refuse to see them all along, from them signing on with that group?
Also, you are the one that doesn't understand the way ERA works. It is not in itself a Constitutional protection. It is a protection that is constitutionally sound.
There was no possibility of nobody being able to see this baby in that group practice unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.
Please provide the exact Amendment.
You are missing the point, by a mile. The doctor has seen them already, set up the appointment, did not even tell them that she is backing out. They only found out whey they showed up for the appointment.Who knows, but why should they be entitled to her services simply because they are lesbians?
Who knows, but why should they be entitled to her services simply because they are lesbians? If a physician believes they can't provide the highest quality of care to someone due to certain factors then the responsible thing is to have them seen by someone else. It's not much different from practitioners referring someone elsewhere for abortion services or those who are unwilling to see drug addicts or other patient populations they may not be able to establish a proper relationship with.
This issue is being blown up way out of proportion, likely due to this special rights movement of LGBTQ entitlement with blatant disrespect of the rights and beliefs of others who may have issues with it.
You're throwing spaghetti at the wall. Patients see one doctor in the group regularly BECAUSE that develops the necessary doctor/patient relationship. And no, because they signed with the group.
Wow, all this nonsense just to avoid actually googling protected classes. Here ya go, you can stop twisting now:
Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just to emphasize, there is a tremendous difference between not being able to provide the best care because lack of expertise, experience, familiarity with a condition, lack of equipment and so one, but bigotry is something that should never be part of the equation. Personal feelings are supposed to be overcome by true professionals.Physician felt she couldn't provide the best care...
The First and all the resconstruction amendments. EVERY SCOTUS decision on race in the modern century.
There was always the possibility, because there was a possibility of everyone but her getting sick or even everyone in the office getting sick that day. There is also the possibility that only the other doctor who actually agreed to take her patient had a family emergency that day. There was always the possibility that the other doctors, all of them, could have refused to take the lesbian mothers' baby as a patient based on the same objections she had. Those are all possible. They may not have been probable to happen, but still possible.
And sexual orientation by SCOTUS decision.Religion and race are protected by constitutional amendment
You are missing the point, by a mile. The doctor has seen them already, set up the appointment, did not even tell them that she is backing out. They only found out whey they showed up for the appointment.
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.
More logically, re: Rosa Parks, we can look at one woman on a bus and one bus driver. She was asked to move to another seat....at the back. No harm would have been done for her to move to the back of the bus. One person, one incident, no harm. Totally meaningless, right?
Others have attempted to make this issue clear on this type of basis, I dont see the point of more detail because apparently either it's meaningless or it's irrelevant to the OP and would be dismissed.
They already do, what's wrong with you? But to do so for a patient that is in need of immediate medical treatment is indeed unprofessional and against the law. That wasn't the case here.
Maybe the apology or how to sort that aspect out was not part of her prayers and it came to her later, when her bigotry was being known by more and more people. Self serving apologies are always the best.That's actually my biggest issue with this person at this point. She comes across as supremely unprofessional and as a coward to boot. She couldn't be bothered to tell them face to face that she would not take their baby as a patient after all, had one of her colleagues do her dirty work for her and it took 4 months for her to apologize to them.
I assume most people don't care, to start (although most people do prefer to built histories with routine doctors -- saves time re-stating your history). But you're basically saying there should be no limit on what they can pass the buck over, which may ultimately end in a person being refused service from anyone. Yes, that's crazy.
Rosa Parks? Okay, I'll play the Rosa Parks hypothetical, but that won't stop me from laughing at this being compared to the Rosa Parks story.
Let's see. Rosa Parks paid for a bus ticket. Same as the white people on the bus did. Their ticket allowed them to sit wherever they wanted. Hers didn't. She wasn't being treated equally. She was being ordered to move to a section of the bus against her wishes. She refused to do it.
Okay, and that has to do with the baby being seen by the doctor's partner....how again?
You're still confused. The legal basis for laws is not a matter of opinion.
It's a matter of law
How about this? Doctor believes mixed race couples go against God and the children are "harmed" from the rejection they face. Doctor tells parents only after making the appointment that he cannot see a mixed race child based on his personal religious beliefs. Illegal discrimination or not? Why?
Doctors can reject patients if they are on Medicaid, or Medicare, why should any other reason not be valid? They can reject patients for almost any reason, except in emergency situations. As a doctor, you indeed get to pick your clients.
Tim-
Why are you asking me what's illegal or not? I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one. You should ask an attorney that question.
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?