Pediatrician declines to care for lesbians baby

[RickBean]

As Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn's first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a change of heart. After "much prayer," she decided that she couldn't treat the Hazel Park, Mich. couple's baby because they are lesbians
And i agree that if you have your own business(bakery f.e.)you can say "No" to customer if you don't like him! Everybody remember situation with baker who payed about 150000$ for homosexuals because of "discrimination." But when u're doctor, you should help people and it doesn't matter what you do in your bed!
What do you think guys?
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/02/18/doctor-letter-gay-patient-2-moms-letter/23629689/

 

[TheVrolok]

I don't "like" her decision, but I think she should/could be forced to care for a patient. It's not like this was emergency/urgent care. Another provider was found for the same appointment. While the refusal of care does make me uncomfortable, I'm not sure it's a big deal in this particular case.

 

[Smoblikat]

I dont see a problem. You cannot force people to provide services unwillingly.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I dont see a problem. You cannot force people to provide services unwillingly.

So if you arrived at the emergency room, badly injured in terrible pain and/or very ill, you would be fine if for some reason(s), they chose NOT to treat you ?

Or it was less urgent, they decided NOT to treat you, so you had to drive 50 miles each way, to find a Doctor who WILL treat you ?

 

[NesuD]

So if you arrived at the emergency room, badly injured in terrible pain and/or very ill, you would be fine if for some reason(s), they chose NOT to treat you ?

Or it was less urgent, they decided NOT to treat you, so you had to drive 50 miles each way, to find a Doctor who WILL treat you ?

Apples and oranges. Scenarios not even remotely the same. The doctor did not refuse treatment of the infant. She in fact made sure the infant would be seen by a well qualified colleague. While I am disappointed that a well educated professional would feel the way she apparently does she did not endanger the patient in anyway.

The parents carefully chose her to be their daughters pediatrician. The parents obviously did not make a very good choice. Choosing your child's healthcare provider is very important. In this circumstance the doctors comfort level should be an important part of the decision. Forcing the doctor to be the child's Pediatrician knowing the Doctors personal misgivings would be irresponsible on the parents part. They should be glad the doctor was able to be honest enough with herself to realize that being their child's pediatrician would not be in their child's best interest.

At the end of the day this is about what is best for the child, not about making a political statement.

 

[cbrunny]

Whether she is forced to or not, the doctor is a horrible person.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Apples and oranges. Scenarios not even remotely the same. The doctor did not refuse treatment of the infant. She in fact made sure the infant would be seen by a well qualified colleague. While I am disappointed that a well educated professional would feel the way she apparently does she did not endanger the patient in anyway.

The parents carefully chose her to be their daughters pediatrician. The parents obviously did not make a very good choice. Choosing your child's healthcare provider is very important. In this circumstance the doctors comfort level should be an important part of the decision. Forcing the doctor to be the child's Pediatrician knowing the Doctors personal misgivings would be irresponsible on the parents part. They should be glad the doctor was able to be honest enough with herself to realize that being their child's pediatrician would not be in their child's best interest.

At the end of the day this is about what is best for the child, not about making a political statement.

Apart from the fact, that I still completely DON'T agree with you.

Would it be acceptable, if doctors put on their office doors, notices, like this:

• No Fat people
• No females
• No purple coloured skin people
• No one with tattoos
• No facial jewelry
• No computer/IT/similar people
• No poor people
• No rich people
• No bright colour cloths people
• No one from Florida
• No Facebook users
• No non-smokers
• No one aged <30 or >40 years old
• No one with the first 8 star signs
• No Obama supporters
• No Ebay sellers

Would that be ok ?

 

[dphantom]

Apart from the fact, that I still completely DON'T agree with you.

Would it be acceptable, if doctors put on their office doors, notices, like this:

• No Fat people
• No females
• No purple coloured skin people
• No one with tattoos
• No facial jewelry
• No computer/IT/similar people
• No poor people
• No rich people
• No bright colour cloths people
• No one from Florida
• No Facebook users
• No non-smokers
• No one aged <30 or >40 years old
• No one with the first 8 star signs
• No Obama supporters
• No Ebay sellers

Would that be ok ?

Yes.

Now what?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Yes.

Now what?

Then some people become very rich, by suing doctors under discrimination laws. If they succeed, they can use the money to hire non-prejudicial doctors.

 

[TheVrolok]

Then some people become very rich, by suing doctors under discrimination laws. If they succeed, they can use the money to hire non-prejudicial doctors.

A doctor doesn't "have" to treat you, unless under specific circumstances.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

A doctor doesn't "have" to treat you, unless under specific circumstances.

There is a sort of "unwritten rule", where by, they should only be discriminating in very extreme and rare circumstances.

So, yes they have the right to "reject" a patient, but they should only be rejecting a tiny number of patients, it should be the exception, rather than the rule.

Discrimination, especially due to racial/religious grounds, is increasingly hitting the news headlines, and seems to be something which society is trying to stamp out.

Imagine if I ran a small shop, and on the outside, put a notice up which listed what groups can and can't enter my shop.

I'm sure I would get into terrible trouble with the authorities, may get verbal abuse from people, and could see a huge backlash, where customers (even if allowed to buy in my shop), ignore my shop.

 

[highland145]

There is a sort of "unwritten rule", where by, they should only be discriminating in very extreme and rare circumstances.

So, yes they have the right to "reject" a patient, but they should only be rejecting a tiny number of patients, it should be the exception, rather than the rule.

Discrimination, especially due to racial/religious grounds, is increasingly hitting the news headlines, and seems to be something which society is trying to stamp out.

Imagine if I ran a small shop, and on the outside, put a notice up which listed what groups can and can't enter my shop.

I'm sure I would get into terrible trouble with the authorities, may get verbal abuse from people, and could see a huge backlash, where customers (even if allowed to buy in my shop), ignore my shop.

Then the market has spoken and you lose. Someone else will pick up the business. Sounds fair.

 

[justoh]

Wait, so they still wanted to see the doctor after finding out she prays (or cared enough to make a news story out of it)?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Then the market has spoken and you lose. Someone else will pick up the business. Sounds fair.

The complication is that I am basing what I say, too much on the UK. Which does not (mostly) have a "market", for health services. Because we usually use the NHS (National Health Service), which is free, for legitimate residents/users.

Having a mainly private health service, complicates the situation.

tl;dr
I am beginning to disagree with my own posts in this thread, to some extent.

In the NHS, anti-discrimination is vital, because your GP (Local Doctor), will choose ONE and only ONE doctor (Hospital) for you to see. Since you are NOT paying for the service (directly), you don't have a lot of choice on this (although sometimes there is a bit of flexibility).

 

[highland145]

The complication is that I am basing what I say, too much on the UK. Which does not (mostly) have a "market", for health services. Because we usually use the NHS (National Health Service), which is free, for legitimate residents/users.

Having a mainly private health service, complicates the situation.

tl;dr
I am beginning to disagree with my own posts in this thread, to some extent.

In the NHS, anti-discrimination is vital, because your GP (Local Doctor), will choose ONE and only ONE doctor (Hospital) for you to see. Since you are NOT paying for the service (directly), you don't have a lot of choice on this (although sometimes there is a bit of flexibility).

And P&N has driven another one crazy.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

And P&N has driven another one crazy.

What I meant was that my answers, had been made in this thread, with a HUGE bias to the UK.
Unfortunately, I did NOT notice this bias until way too late in the thread.

Now that I have noticed this bias, it could effect my answers.

I.e. My perception/experience of Doctors, has usually been NHS ones. Perhaps (US ones) are a bit different, because of the much greater private health care situation.

 

[highland145]

What I meant was that my answers, had been made in this thread, with a HUGE bias to the UK.
Unfortunately, I did NOT notice this bias until way too late in the thread.

Now that I have noticed this bias, it could effect my answers.

I.e. My perception/experience of Doctors, has usually been NHS ones. Perhaps (US ones) are a bit different, because of the much greater private health care situation.

I know what you meant. Just messing with you.()

 

[dphantom]

Then the market has spoken and you lose. Someone else will pick up the business. Sounds fair.

Precisely.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Precisely.

(I have to resign from P&N now, because) I tend to agree with you now, but I still don't "like" the idea of a Doctor picking and choosing patients too much.

I guess it boils down to if the doctors services, are a "market", or a "requirement" to keep people healthy.

In an emergency, clearly it is a "requirement".

But in a gentle non-urgent outpatients visit, it is closer to a market place. But I am still against it (in opinion terms), but accepting it, as a possible way of running the market.

 

[umbrella39]

A doctor doesn't "have" to treat you, unless under specific circumstances.

No she doesn't have to treat you. That's her choice. She doesn't have to bake them a cake either. But if she denies to treat you based on being gay, black, jew... based on her religious beliefs... she might find at least 150,000 reasons why she should have.

 

[umbrella39]

Then the market has spoken and you lose. Someone else will pick up the business. Sounds fair.

So what you are saying and correct me if I am wrong... you open up a fine dining restaurant and chose not to serve any black people. So long as you provide them directions to the closest soul food restaurant... Someone else picked up the business. You are in the clear?

 

[highland145]

So what you are saying and correct me if I am wrong... you open up a fine dining restaurant and chose not to serve any black people. So long as you provide them directions to the closest soul food restaurant... Someone else picked up the business. You are in the clear?

Me personally? No. I'm one of those evil business owners and the only color I see is green.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

AM I reading these posts right? Discrimination is ok, so long as it's not an inconvenience to the people being discriminated against?

 

[TheVrolok]

So, yes they have the right to "reject" a patient, but they should only be rejecting a tiny number of patients, it should be the exception, rather than the rule.

It is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[TheVrolok]

No she doesn't have to treat you. That's her choice. She doesn't have to bake them a cake either. But if she denies to treat you based on being gay, black, jew... based on her religious beliefs... she might find at least 150,000 reasons why she should have.

That's a false equivalency here, though. In the bakery the couple was denied a cake, in this case they received care, just from a different doctor at the same office. The original doctor is a douche, no doubt, but it's not the same. Also not the case regarding the payout, apparently Michigan do not have laws to protect the couple in this context.