- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 12,050
- Location
- Over the edge...
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Can you cite one which condones declining treatment for a six days old child because of ignorant bigotry?No, sir. Many, many physicians don't take the Hippocratic Oath (choosing an alternative oath instead) and haven't done so for over 30 years.
A zombie apocalypse is also a scary thought, and about as likely to occur as this scenario that you've outlined.
Can you cite one which condones declining treatment for a six days old child because of ignorant bigotry?
Then you would be wrong, because the likelihood of both is absolutely zero.Zombies don't exist. Christians Do. So I would say the likelihood of the latter is far greater.
You tied to excuse the bigotry because she may have taken a different version or different oath as a physician. Now when asked if you know any that would condone it, it becomes irrelevant or more like you are fresh out of excuses?Non sequitur and entirely irrelevant to my point.
The point is not a country run entirely as a theocracy but the damage that results from even isolated manifestations of such bigotry as that of this doctor.Then you would be wrong, because the likelihood of both is absolutely zero.
Then you would be wrong, because the likelihood of both is absolutely zero.
Then you would be wrong, because the likelihood of both is absolutely zero.
You tied to excuse the bigotry because she may have taken a different version or different oath as a physician. Now when asked if you know any that would condone it, it becomes irrelevant or more like you are fresh out of excuses?
Please do not delude yourself, I have do desire to get on your ass in any way shape or form.Get off my ass, Prometeus.
No, you did not. You attempted, but the fact is that physicians today take an oath which is for all practical purposes the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath, and not a single on condones such bigotry. So the refusal to see the infant is a clear violation of such oaths.What I did was correct a factual misstatement.
Not directly you did not, but your attempted correction, speak volumes also.I have offered no opinion whatsoever on the OP
The issues we have include:
> judging the baby for the lifestyles of the mothers
> Does this doctor also refuse to see babies of divorced parents, or single mothers, or unmarried couples? those are probably also against her religion. If she sees babies of those parents, she's a hypocrite through and through (which, of course, she can be - we're just calling her out on it)
> The mothers chose that doctor; maybe there was a reason. Was the substitute doctor as good? As knowledgeable about the circumstances?
In this case, there was another doctor; in a more rural area, there might not have been one.
No one is saying the doctor has to approve of the lifestyles of the mothers. What we are saying is that, having agreed to provide medical care to the baby, it was crappy of her to back out last minute (as far as the mothers were concerned - they had no knowledge of it till the appt).
You say there is nothing to see. We say we see a lousy doctor.
If a radical Christian takeover of the entire medical field is something you feel you need to worry about, knock yourself out.Mathematically you are absolutely incorrect. The likelihood is small to that I concede. But Zombies don't exist so yes ZERO.
Christians Do. Zealous Christians do. Zealous Christians in Office do. So the possibility is there. Mathematically speaking.
Yes, that's certainly not a good position to be in, but at the same time, not the fault of the doctor. I'm guessing that if this doctor were the only one available for miles around, she might have made a different choice than she did.But as mentioned, in small rural towns, there may not be many options. My town has 3,000 people in it; the county has 20,000 people in it. We must have at least 20 churches in the county - maybe more. As far as I know, they are all xtian of some variety or another.
If our doctors ever refused to take care of someone - or their child- due to their beliefs, it's a long way to another doctor...
Now that IS irrelevant.I don't think you understand why physicians so often choose not to take the Hippocratic Oath.
Is this some sort of fetish for you? First the ass think now the sucking...What you're trying to do is suck me into
Is that why you dismissed Pete's premise that the doctor's license should be revoked?and my sole purpose in posting on this thread was to correct a very common misconception.
And there you go again with the innuendos.What your agenda is here with me I can't guess, but you need to find somebody else to bait.
You're determined to miss the point, so I'll quit trying. I should have known better. My mistake.
Rosa Parks broke a law. Was she a "perpetrator of injustice" too?
She didn't. Did you listen to the clip? She never said "all", never said "freeloaders" and never even implied it. The OP was wrong and misleading, just as Beau said.
And it's happened before that a man kills his wife. So does that mean we women should all be afraid to get married in the event our husbands decide to kill us?
I'm a woman. And a fiscal conservative. No conservatives have declared war on me. And I've done just fine in my life.
Who's Bart?
Ah, I get it now. I'm a bad person for calling her a young woman. Neat! What would have been a more appropriate name for her then?
Can you educate me on what specific ways the Republicans are "actively courting the southern white bigot vote"? I live in NH so I'm not in the south nor am I a bigot, so I wouldn't know how they are doing that.
What are the black and Hispanic voters looking for that the Democrats are delivering to them, by the way? I'm also curious about what is in their platform that is specifically beneficial to either or both of those groups, and are targeted to them and not the southern white bigots?
And is Mia Love stupid for picking the Republican side to run on? From the sound of your post it would appear that the Republicans made a big mistake helping to elect a black woman if their target demographic is southern white bigots? And how do they explain their support of Tim Scott to all the white bigots in South Carolina? He seems an odd choice in the middle of the area they supposedly are trying to demonstrate an aversion for minorities in order to impress the white bigots.
And they corrected it. So they made a mistake that they shouldn't have made. What is the big deal, and what are you looking to happen now?
Wait - wut? Left wingers don't care about child safety?
Of course she did that is why she did set up the appointment based on a prenatal visit, only to deny it later.She didn't agree to provide medical care to the baby.
Irrelevant. This entire thread is about the actions of that doctor.She works for a group practice.
Irrelevant stupid drivel.We don't have a constitutional right to see the doctor of our choice in a group practice.
As a result of discrimination. Have you ever been discriminated against? If so you were or are OK with it?Their feelings were hurt
It is astounding the level of denials and inability to see what this kind of discrimination can lead to.
Your strawman looks great. Where would you draw the line. Life lost? Multiple lives lost? How many?If a radical Christian takeover of the entire medical field is something you feel you need to worry about, knock yourself out.
Of course not, the doctor did not choose to be a bigot for no reason.Yes, that's certainly not a good position to be in, but at the same time, not the fault of the doctor.
Good guess, good guess. Baseless as it is, but a good one.I'm guessing that if this doctor were the only one available for miles around, she might have made a different choice than she did.
Of course she did that is why she did set up the appointment based on a prenatal visit, only to deny it later.
Irrelevant. This entire thread is about the actions of that doctor.
Irrelevant stupid drivel.
As a result of discrimination. Have you ever been discriminated against? If so you were or are OK with it?
You don't know much about group practices, I see. You don't always get the doctor you want. Sometimes you see a different one. It isn't a national tragedy when you can't see the one. It happens all the time.
It isn't irrelevant that she works for a group practice. Again, you don't know what a group practice is.
Not irrelevant stupid drivel. It's a fact. They have no right to demand a specific pediatrician.
We've all been discriminated against. Not everyone likes everyone else. Most adults don't whine about it. Thank goodness.
Are you being obtuse or you are really not capable to grasp the issue? It is not about group practice or who saw the infant but strictly about the action of one single doctor. She agreed to be the pediatrician of the infant in a prenatal visit. She set up the appointment and the declined to see the infant. She was not hit by a bus, was not on the moon or on vacation, she did not want to see the infant, because she is a bigot. Which part of any of this do you have so much difficulty getting?You don't know much about group practices, I see. You don't always get the doctor you want. Sometimes you see a different one.
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
Are you being obtuse or you are really not capable to grasp the issue? It is not about group practice or who saw the infant but strictly about the action of one single doctor. She agreed to be the pediatrician of the infant in a prenatal visit. She set up the appointment and the declined to see the infant. She was not hit by a bus, was not on the moon or on vacation, she did not want to see the infant, because she is a bigot. Which part of any of this do you have so much difficulty getting?
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?