Please read this and tell me what you think about it and homosexual unions in general. Do you really think she needed to bring the case to court? IMHO I don't think it was necessary to go to that. Anyway please tell me what you think.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I thought that there was something in the law about marital status.
Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
Anyone else gonna post?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
hmm...
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I don't really think she needed to bring the case to court, especially since she did end up finding a doctor. However, it is California, the land of eternal lawsuits, so that probably makes a difference.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think the judgment wasn't incorrect, considering the law. I may hope the law changes someday, but until then, I realize this sort of thing will happen.
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am pleased that in this case doctors are not legally obligated to perform such procedures against their conscience.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am torn...but since this is an elective procedure, and they were willing to help her find someone else to do it (at least at first) I guess it is a good compromise...
I would have a bigger problem with it if it was a necessary procedure, or if it was endangering the patient to refuse it...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The thing about doctors is that they're given a special status in the law. The AMA is all but a governmental body. If they want that sort of recognition, they need to operate as objectively as the government is supposed to.
I think the doctor in question was a swine. But then, I don't think any doctor should be required to treat anyone.
What I'd like to know, though, is whether these doctors would be okay with a Jewish doctor refusing to treat Christians. For religious reasons, say. Would it be okay to go to court, particularly since it's no trick to find another doctor?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or perhaps other restaurants, or drinking fountains, neighborhoods to live in...
On the other hand we don't tell musicians that they have to perform for every audience that invites them either. It isn't a simple situation, but I don't think that the fact that they could find another doctor is the critical issue.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think she'd have a difficult time showing "harm" from the incident. Sure, the person was being a judgemental prick, but she not only DID find another doctor, but she had a baby.
If money exchanged hands, she could sue to get that back, I suppose. But otherwise, is she really "out" anything tangible that a court will recognize?
Of course, there's always pain & suffering...mental anguish, all that stuff. It'll be interesting to see where this case goes.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: What I'd like to know, though, is whether these doctors would be okay with a Jewish doctor refusing to treat Christians. For religious reasons, say.
For the life of me, I can not think of any religious reason that would cause a Jewish doctor to have a problem in treating a Christian. That makes no sense to me.
And by putting that example out there, you may be leading other people to believe that Jews would find this to be acceptable.
Which it is not.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
So do you really want a doctor treating you that doesn't want to be treating you? I wouldn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sure, the person was being a judgemental prick
That's out of line.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sorry, Dag, but if they told her it's because they don't want to inseminate lesbians and then turn around and say "oh, it's because you aren't married," then they are being judgemental pricks.
They could've just said "I won't treat you." They didn't have to share their opinions of her lifestyle, now did they?
If it turns out that they didn't voice their objections and just turned down her request for treatment, then I'll retract my judgement of them. But in the meantime, it certainly appears that they felt obliged to SHARE their morality with her as a reason for not treating her. And that, IMHO, makes them judgemental pricks.
The entire situation could've been avoided had they just said "sorry, no" and left it at that.
Do these people get no training in anti-discrimination personnel practices -- the carry over of advice and practical lessons from that arena would, it seems to me, hold them in good stead.
There's no reason to rub her nose in their religious convictions.
I still don't think she has a chance of winning a civil case (although, hey, a jury may not like the two doctors and choose to award her something for her time and aggravation). But the doctors were stupid if they gave her any hint at all as to why they wouldn't treat her. Stupid, or arrogant, or both.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:They didn't have to share their opinions of her lifestyle, now did they?
Where are you seeing any indication that they did this?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
From what she has said in her court filing. And from the doctor's defense, in fact:
quote:In her suit, Benitez claims that Brody told her in 1999 that her religious beliefs prevented her from helping a homosexual conceive a child by artificial insemination, but that other physicians at the practice would be able to help her.
The next year, Benitez said, she was told that both Brody and Fenton were unable to help her because they did not feel comfortable with her sexual orientation.
The doctors contend they denied treatment because Benitez and her registered domestic partner of 15 years were not married. But Benitez's attorneys said she was denied because of her sexual orientation, not her marital status.
So either: A) they told her they didn't like the fact that she was a lesbian, or B) they told her they didn't like the fact that she is unmarried.
Couldn't they have just said "no?"
It's not like they were denying her a treatment that was in anyway lifesaving, right? Are they obligated to treat EVERYONE in EVERY way? No! All they had to say was "sorry, no."
They didn't have to do anything else. And, really, isn't anything beyond that more about them and their beliefs and not about treating the patient, or dealing with the human being in front of them as a person?
Please...go ahead and explain why they HAD to tell her it was because she wasn't married (or, as she claims, because she's a lesbian).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I see now. I thought that you were saying that the doctors said A.
But even from what you quoted, there is no indication that the doctors said A nor B until the suit was filed.
And even if they did (which I'll agree that they probably did), are you saying that their decision to not treat her makes them judgmental pricks, or being honest about it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Um...the doctors allege that they said B. Oh, you mean they may be denying that they gave her any reason.
Okay, I can see that possible interpretation.
I should amend my prior post to say that they MAY be judgemental pricks.
I hope we get an update on this
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry, Dag, but if they told her it's because they don't want to inseminate lesbians and then turn around and say "oh, it's because you aren't married," then they are being judgemental pricks.
Why are you automatically believing the plaintiffs over the doctor here, at least to the extent of calling someone a male genital without the need to make it conditional?
And I'm not sure how it makes someone less judgmental to do the judging silently.
What if he actually said, sorry, "I don't perform artificial insemination for unmarried couples?" Would that have been judgmental? What if the reason he doesn't perform artificial insemination for gay couples is because they are unmarried?
Sperm donor laws have very special provisions relating to the husband of the recipient. A doctor is providing more than medical services (at least in CA), he's serving as the third-party ensuring that the donation is made and accepted willingly by all parties - including the recipient's husband. It's a lot of participation, and if someone doesn't want to help provide fertility treatments to produce a child outside the confines of a marriage, they're not being a "prick," they're being responsible to their own moral code.
Maybe the doctor wasn't being "stupid, or arrogant, or both" but just honest. Or maybe they didn't give a reason, the patient asked "why can't you help us," and he then gave a reason.
The people suing are being judgmental, deeming their right to non-emergency services to supersede the moral dictates of the physician.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Um...the doctors allege that they said B. Oh, you mean they may be denying that they gave her any reason.
Wait - you think they're pricks if they said they don't perform fertility services for unmarried couples?
Wow.
Just wow.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I find it ridiculous that people take up jobs where part of the requirements would contradict with their religious/moral/whatever beliefs. Especially in the medical field.
What about a doctor who didn't believe in blood transfusions? Should they be allowed to practice? Doctors are supposed to help people. How can we allow doctors to discriminate against who they treat? If they're going to have a problem doing their job, perhaps they should find a new job. And why would a boss keep on an employee who refuses, without logical reason, to perform a service which brings in business?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I've got a feeling that by simply refusing, they'd have faced a similar lawsuit anyway. When it boils down to it, the woman is basically mad because two doctors would not perform an elective procedure on her because of their own religious convictions.
Which is the trump card -- sexual orientation/marital status or religious convictions?
The doctors, apparently from what has been said, did suggest other physicians, perhaps within the same practice, who would be willing to help her.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I find it ridiculous that people take up jobs where part of the requirements would contradict with their religious/moral/whatever beliefs. Especially in the medical field.
This job doesn't require that. Doctors in private practice pick their own clients for a variety of reasons.
quote:What about a doctor who didn't believe in blood transfusions? Should they be allowed to practice? Doctors are supposed to help people. How can we allow doctors to discriminate against who they treat?
Is artificial insemination life preserving treatment that must be performed on a minute's notice by the attending physician in a private practice that sees patients only by appointment? No. It's elective, and it's planned well in advance.
quote: If they're going to have a problem doing their job, perhaps they should find a new job. And why would a boss keep on an employee who refuses, without logical reason, to perform a service which brings in business?
I totally favor a boss's right to not hire anyone who won't do the services required, and to let anyone go who stops doing the services required.
Further, you are skipping over a whole lot of analysis when you say there are no logical reasons to make this decision.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I'd like to hear them argue how sexual orientation makes her less qualified to be a mother. I can't imagine how that could go well without making them look like bigots.
One can argue how being unmarried might be bad for the child, but in a generation of single moms and dads, I find even those claims to be ridiculous. But if they denied her for being a lesbian, it wasn't because the child would lack a father figure or be in a potentially financial-unstable home. It was because they saw something BAD in being a lesbian. That's an argument I can't even fathom.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd like to hear them argue how sexual orientation makes her less qualified to be a mother. I can't imagine how that could go well without making them look like bigots.
Since they're not claiming this (now, at least), I doubt you'll get this wish satisfied.
quote:One can argue how being unmarried might be bad for the child, but in a generation of single moms and dads, I find even those claims to be ridiculous.
There's a difference between having a kid out of wedlock accidentally and planning to do so. There's an even bigger difference between acknowledging that out of wedlock parenthood happens for a lot of reasons and actually helping conceive a child out of wedlock.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Wait - you think they're pricks if they said they don't perform fertility services for unmarried couples?
Wow.
Just wow.
Yep. You left off the judgemental part, though.
Again, if all they told her was "no," then I've got no problem with them.
Based on the information we have so far, what makes you think they were protecting the rights of the sperm donor? Has that been entered as part of their defense? All I see is that they cited religious convictions.
It certain APPEARS that they: 1) Decided on religious principals, and 2) Shared those objections with this woman.
There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with #1. There's a HUGE problem with #2. Maybe not legally, of course, but I find it pretty hard to go at this from the perspective you speculated on. Maybe there's another article out there giving a broader treatment of the defense argument in this case?
I think your speculations are just not likely given what I've read so far. But, hey, it could be biased reporting. So, show us where they've used the argument you propose, or something other than religion to deny this woman treatment.
And again, even if that's what they did, I'm perfectly fine with it.
I just don't think they should've told her anything about WHY they denied her treatment. Unless they are also her spiritual counselors, of course, they were engaged in a professional relationship with her and should have the sense to keep the relationship on that footing.
I suppose I could amend it and say they may have just been stupid (again, if they actually TOLD her their reasons for denying her treatment).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Based on the information we have so far, what makes you think they were protecting the rights of the sperm donor?
What I said was that the doctor in an artificial insemination in CA acts as a third party to protect everyone's rights. This wasn't meant to imply that they refused to protect the donor's rights, but that the involvement is non-trivial. The doctor is an integral part of the process.
quote:There's a HUGE problem with #2. Maybe not legally, of course, but I find it pretty hard to go at this from another perspective. Maybe there's another article out there giving a broader treatment of the defense argument in this case?
Why? Seriously, why the hell does someone deserve to be called a prick because they stated what their beliefs were?
quote:I think your speculations are just not likely given what they've gone on record. But, hey, it could be biased reporting. So, show us where they've used the argument you propose, or something other than religion to deny this woman treatment.
The only speculations I've made is that 1) they told her the reason was that she wasn't married or 2) they didn't giver her a reason, she asked, then they told her.
You have a low prick threshold.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:There's a difference between having a kid out of wedlock accidentally and planning to do so. There's an even bigger difference between acknowledging that out of wedlock parenthood happens for a lot of reasons and actually helping conceive a child out of wedlock.
Atleast AI proves the woman has thought the situation out and is prepared, as opposed to an "accident" just happening. Maybe I just can't fathom how there are people in the world who feel they have a right to make choices for other people based on personally held biases.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe I just can't fathom how there are people in the world who feel they have a right to make choices for other people based on personally held biases.
But, you do think you have the right to make choices for this doctor - to make him perform elective procedures he doesn't want to do. Can you not fathom why you feel you have the right?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Are suggesting that it would be okay for doctors to not perform artificial inseminations on black people because they don't think that black people should reproduce? Or say he's one of the Christians who believe that inter-racial marriage is sinful and they refuse to perform an insemination on a mixed race married couple? Because I don't see how that's moral, ethical, or legal.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:But, you do think you have the right to make choices for this doctor - to make him perform elective procedures he doesn't want to do. Can you not fathom why you feel you have the right?
I wouldn't force them to. But if doctors don't want to be forced to do their JOB, then they should find another one that isn't going to be in moral conflict with their ideals.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
And on the topic of race, what about a doctor who didn't want to perform insemination for a mixed race couple? I know plenty of people who could provide arguments against aiding the bringing of a biracial child into the world, but should we allow that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But if doctors don't want to be forced to do their JOB, then they should find another one that isn't going to be in moral conflict with their ideals.
And these doctors feel comfortable saying "if these two want to conceive a child though artificial insemination, they should find another doctor."
You can capitalize JOB all you want, it doesn't change the fact that doctors select their patients all the time. I know several doctors who have "fired" patients, and I know several who won't take lawyers on as patients. A professional does not have to serve every single person who comes to them for service, although almost all professions have rules that require professionals to take on some clients/patients in certain carefully defined circumstances.
I doubt elective AI is one of them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It certain APPEARS that they: 1) Decided on religious principals, and 2) Shared those objections with this woman.
There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with #1. There's a HUGE problem with #2.
I find it bizarre that you are OK with #1, but not with them being honest about it.
It seems to me that if you have to lie about what you are doing, you shouldn't be doing it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Why? Seriously, why the hell does someone deserve to be called a prick because they stated what their beliefs were?
Stating ones beliefs is absolutely fine.
Stating it as a reason for denying someone your professional services is...unprofessional.
It also has a ring of the sanctimonious to me.
Is there any good reason for them to have told her ANYTHING, even when she asked? Was there an option left open to them that did not involve them passing along a religious message to her?
Re: the third party stuff -- have they said that as part of their defense?
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:There's a HUGE problem with #2. Maybe not legally, of course, but I find it pretty hard to go at this from another perspective. Maybe there's another article out there giving a broader treatment of the defense argument in this case?
Why? Seriously, why the hell does someone deserve to be called a prick because they stated what their beliefs were?
As far as I can tell its because people have the mistaken belief that they have some right to never ever be offended by anything.
Edit: Bob posted while I was reading/writing.
I'm curious why your calling their honesty unprofessional. Would you have prefered they lie, or just refuse to answer?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Re: the third party stuff -- have they said that as part of their defense?
No. As I said, I brought it up to illustrate how deeply involved the doctor is in the process. It's more than just ringing up a playboy at a store; it's integral involvement in the process that will require moral considerations by many people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:You have a low prick threshold.
Now really Dag, that's between Bob and me, and maybe his doctor. It's not something you should be spreading all over the internet. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
*choke*
haha
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't mind that she sued, though I do think the judge was right in the ruling.
I don't think the doctor should be forced to do something that violates his religious beliefs, but on the other hand, starLisa's point is resonating with me. Legally, could a Jew refuse to treat a Christian? Or could a Sunni refuse to treat a Shi'a Muslim? Or any of a hundred other combinations. I'd imagine religious discrimination is against the law in most states. It's scary to think that someone could deny me service for anything, just because I'm Catholic, or because I'm a Democrat, or whatever the reason might be, that's really what it boils down to.
If I created my own religion tomorrow that said treating blondes was against my religion, and then I converted every doctor in America to my cause, what's to legally stop me? Nothing. And thus the blondes of the nation are in serious trouble, but they have no legal protection, since no one can outlaw my religious practice or my right to exercise it.
What if we replace "unmarried" with "black" or "homosexual" with "protestant"? What if we replace private practice medical doctor with private school teacher?
Someone has to lose in this situation.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yep.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What if I [insert imposible act]? Then [insert meaningless result of impossible act].
What if we replaced "kitchen knives" with "handguns"? What if we replaced "soda" with "heroin"? What if we replaced "rubber" with "glue"?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
The more I think about it, the more I think that the doctors behaved in a way that we should be supporting, not bringing lawsuits against. The doctors behaved in everyone's best interests. They didn't perform a procedure that they felt was immoral, but they also refered her to other doctors, presumably ones in the same building, that would, so that the patient would have to endure as little trouble as possible as a result of their moral convictions. Personally, I wish all Christians with the same moral convictions as these doctors would behave in the same way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What if I [insert imposible act]? Then [insert meaningless result of impossible act].
What if we replaced "kitchen knives" with "handguns"? What if we replaced "soda" with "heroin"? What if we replaced "rubber" with "glue"?
What if we replaced "mr porteiro head" with "guy who attempts to mock Lyrhawn with non sequitors while ignoring the point he was trying to make"?
I guess mph is shorter isn't it?
Either you missed or ignored the point I was trying to make. It's socially acceptable to do what the doctor did, and personally I'm not even sure what I think about it. But if it had been for other (possibly) legally acceptable reasons, such as the ones I mentioned, then it wouldn't be socially acceptable. It goes to the state of mind of a country willing to impinge on gay rights for the sake of doctor's religious beliefs, but quite possibly not willing to impinge on say, racial discriminatory rights for the sake of the same. And it's that difference that has me worried, and which I think deserves further discussion.
Or if you prefer mph, we can go back to arguing with nonsensical phrases that aren't pertinent to the discussion.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I wanna go back to replacing "prick" with "male genital".
In particular, my new insult of choice is going to be "you judgmental male genital".
I think it's the use of the singular that makes this particularly funny to me.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Why are you automatically believing the plaintiffs over the doctor here, at least to the extent of calling someone a male genital without the need to make it conditional?
And carrying on that train of thought, I think calling someone a judgmental, conditional male genital is even better.
(Good to see I'm learning from this discussion).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: I don't really think she needed to bring the case to court, especially since she did end up finding a doctor. However, it is California, the land of eternal lawsuits, so that probably makes a difference.
I'm not sure the fact, alone, that she was able to find someone else to perform the procedure automatically makes the lawsuit unwarranted. Stated by itself, that smacks of "separate but equal" reasoning. Clearly there was enough ambiguity in the law, in the court's opinion, to allow the lawsuit. Part of the purpose of such suits is to clear up such ambiguities, right?
The woman felt (perhaps wrongly) that her rights had been violated. It is to her credit if she pursued the defense of her perceived rights in court even though at that point they had no direct practical value for her if she was doing so to insure equal treatment for others in the future. (On the other hand maybe her motives were less noble, but who here has basis to make that judgement?)
Can't this be seen as a simple disagreement over rights and legal obligations which was taken to court and decided, without the need to hurl epithets or assign negative motives to either party?
And though I have no problem with the woman bringing the suit, I, personally, also have no real problem with the court's actions and ultimate outcome. I don't think "Well what if a Christian doctor refuses to treat Jews" is a reasonable response in this case, for the same reason I don't feel that "Well what if a man wants to marry his brother" is a reasonable response to the possibility of allowing same-sex unions. I dislike slippery-slope arguements because although you can find points of similarity between any two points on a spectrum, you can also find differences, indicating that they aren't the same thing and therefore logically do not have to be treated the same way under a particular law. That's precisely why we have courts and not just a giant copy of Accepted Legal Rulings for Dummies that decides everything.
And for what it's worth, I don't think simply stating that one is refusing a particular course of action because it goes against one's moral code makes one a prick or even unprofessional. There are many ways they might have conveyed the same information that definitely would be prickish and unprofessional, but we have no reason to believe (from the article at least) that the doctors did anything but state their refusal and maybe that it was because of their religious beliefs.
Maybe I just have a higher prick threshold. (But that's probably TMI )
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Would you have prefered they lie, or just refuse to answer?
Refuse to answer, YES! Simply telling her no was sufficient, was it not? Anything beyond that is for their own gratification, not for their patient. And, by its very nature, unprofessional. Unless she went to them for spiritual counseling, they have no need and no justification for sharing their religious motivations with her.
Hollow Earth, your statement implying that I think people have the right to never be offended is just nonsense. I didn't say that, and you certainly have to have your own set of biases in order to get that from the rather careful wording I've used in my posts.
I've said three times now that I would hold my view of the docs conditionally, and that if they kept their yaps shut and just gave her a polite "no" then I'm totally fine with what they did.
If, on the other hand, they shared their religious convictions with her in a doctor/patient setting as a reason to deny her service, I have a real problem.
I expect people I'm paying in a professional capacity to keep MY needs uppermost in their minds. Unless you want to somehow argue that professionally they feel that being a lesbian is a poor health choice, it had no business being addressed from their side of the table.
Same with being unmarried.
I have yet to see anyone on the other side of this issue admit that they SHOULD'VE just said "no" and left it at that.
Sure there's an element of hurting the patient's feelings, but I actually DO accept that from doctors -- when it is related to health issues. If a doctor berates someone for being overweight, or yells at a diabetic for eating candy all the time, I would think they were lacking in a certain social skill, but I would not lambast them for it.
When there's no medical reason for it -- you bet I'm angry. It isn't just that I expect people to keep their unnecessary opinions to themselves, I expect it much more so when dealing with hired professionals.
If they're on my nickel, they should keep their personal life and personal opinions out of it.
If they are paying me to listen, then maybe I'll decide it's worth my time.
Note PLEASE that I'm not saying that they should go against their religion and treat the woman over their own conscientious objections. This is a case of an elective treatment and they referred her to others who would take on the job. That's more than they had to do.
Honestly, if the reporting is at all accurate, these people are not very smart. And that has been my point all along.
So...
1) Tell me they didn't charge her for the consult 2) Tell me they really did just say "no" and nothing more. 3) Tell me that they are making a point about the sperm donor's rights or some other medical/legal-related issue.
Then I change my provisional epithet.
I support their right to practice medicine in a way that is consistent with their religion. Except in life-threatening situations, they have every right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY REASON as far as I'm concerned.
It's not like they work for the government, eh?
Unless of course they take Medicaid or other public money.
Then, there's another problem.
<edited >
[ December 06, 2005, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Maybe I just have a higher prick threshold. (But that's probably TMI [Wink] )
Don't ask, don't tell....
And let me be the first to NOT ask. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm going to have to agree with Dag. Doctors do refuse to take on patients for many, many reasons. If they are in private practice they are not required to treat anyone.
This would be different if, say, a lesbian went to an emergency room needing treatment and was told "We don't treat lesbians here." Emergency rooms have a duty to act, a moral ethical and even legal obligation to treat whoever comes through the door. But this is a private practice - privately owned, and doctors have long been given the right to choose their own patients. It's an elective procedure, usually paid for out of pocket. Doctors will refuse to take on patients that can't prove and ability to pay in this situation - are the discriminating against poor people? Are they saying poor people don't deserve to be parents?
No, they're making a business decision. No one has a right to artificial insemination (we can argue whether or not they should, but the fact is right now it's considered elective and not medically necessary) and there is no duty to act on the fertility doctor. I went to a Christian OB - it was made very clear that it was a Christian practice they would not implant IUD and besides an ultrasound they offered no other testing - no amnios or anything that might be used to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy. They have that right and ability - they were a private practice and if you didn't agree to their terms you were free to walk out the door and find another practice. I don't see where the doctors have done anything wrong. It may have been hurtful to the woman, I don't deny that, but I don't see where she has been harmed or where the doctors did anything outside the ethical practices of their profession.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have yet to see anyone on the other side of this issue admit that they SHOULD'VE just said "no" and left it at that.
Because, from what I can tell, they don't think the doctor should have done that. You're also being naive here - at some point the doctor had to ask if she were married (to comply with that law I mentioned), and at that point, had he said "no," her reaction would most likely not have been any different. After all, he would have said "no" as soon as she told him she was an unmarried lesbian.
quote:I went to a Christian OB - it was made very clear that it was a Christian practice they would not implant IUD and besides an ultrasound they offered no other testing - no amnios or anything that might be used to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy. They have that right and ability - they were a private practice and if you didn't agree to their terms you were free to walk out the door and find another practice.
Here's another point to those who think the doctors shouldn't be allowed to or shouldn't have refused: there are people, probably many, who will be MUCH more confortable with a doctor who shares their views on morality concerning reproduction. Forcing doctors to do this will force all the doctors with that shared view of reproductive morality to leave the practice. Then a large segment of the population will not be able to have the doctor they would be most comfortable with.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:Would you have prefered they lie, or just refuse to answer?
Refuse to answer, YES! Simply telling her no was sufficient, was it not? Anything beyond that is for their own gratification, not for their patient.
I disagree. While it might have been more prudent in these litigous times to just say "No" without an explanation, to me that seems more rude than giving an explanation, given that the explantion was not given in a rude or condescending way.
To give an explanation is to treat them like fellow human beings. To say nothing but "No" seems, to me, capricious and rude, and treating the people like potential litagators instead of real people.
I personally believe that every child has a right to be born into a family with a married and loving mother and father. I don't think I would every knowingly do something to facilitate somebody purposely doing it outside of marriage. I don't think that people with views like mine should be barred from treating people for reproductive problems.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Either you missed or ignored the point I was trying to make. It's socially acceptable to do what the doctor did, and personally I'm not even sure what I think about it. But if it had been for other (possibly) legally acceptable reasons, such as the ones I mentioned, then it wouldn't be socially acceptable. It goes to the state of mind of a country willing to impinge on gay rights for the sake of doctor's religious beliefs, but quite possibly not willing to impinge on say, racial discriminatory rights for the sake of the same. And it's that difference that has me worried, and which I think deserves further discussion.
I think you missed my point as well.
quote:What if we replace "unmarried" with "black" or "homosexual" with "protestant"? What if we replace private practice medical doctor with private school teacher?
You left the questions unanswered. I've seen so many times people saying things very similar to this, and what they meant was "If it's not OK to do it because of race, religion, or other unacceptable reasons, then it obviously isn't OK to do it for the reasons being discussed here."
My point was that changing things changes things. There are many situations where you cannot replace marital status with race and get an equilavent situation.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:My point was that changing things changes things. There are many situations where you cannot replace marital status with race and get an equilavent situation.
Indeed. That was one of the points I was trying to make above. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think that how I feel about the doctors’ decision (or rather, how they handled it) depends on a lot of things we don’t know. Most importantly, how upfront were they/have they been about their religious values and how those values impact policy at their clinic/practice. Is it a religiously affiliated clinic, or is there something about their values in their mission statement or other publicly available literature? Do they have a policy statement about how they make decisions and evaluate potential patient/clients? A brochure that explains who is eligible for various procedures? Or have they been presenting themselves as a completely secular organization, until this particular issue came up?
In the latter case, while they still have the right to refuse service, I think the patient could legitimately consider it a “bait and switch.” (Not in the classic sense, since they weren’t trying to sell her something else, but in the sense that they changed who they were from how they presented themselves.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'd agree with you dkw, except that I hope that "completely secular organization" does not equal "completely amoral organization". Could they not refuse to treat her based on a secular moral code against treating unmarried women?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Sure. But unless it's spelled out somewhere in a mission/values/policy statement that such is part of their practice, I stand by my previous post.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Do we know if they refuse service to hetero unmarrieds? If so, then it's a marriage issue, not necessarily a homosexual one. If they're consistent across the board, then I don't think there's any room to complain. If they will inseminate unmarried hetero couples, then they're being discriminatory against lesbians. Mind you, I still support their right and ability to do that as a private practice, but it would make it much more discriminatory if they only trotted out that policy for lesbians.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I'm going to have to agree with Dag. Doctors do refuse to take on patients for many, many reasons. If they are in private practice they are not required to treat anyone.
I'd just like to point out that not only have I consistently agreed with this, I was the first one in this thread to state this.
I've thought all along that my point is a very minor one, and my unfortunate choice of words gave people something to focus on rather than the argument about professionalism. That's my own silly fault.
But, without going back and editing posts, I'll just state here that I have a bad cold, I was irritable, and I jumped to a conclusion about these doctors that may not be warranted -- and we do NOT have all the facts.
Others would give them the benefit of the doubt.
I have been in too many personnel meetings with people who don't know how to navigate the applicable laws regarding discrimination, I think. This kind of thing sets me off. Why? Because the quickest way to lose a discrimination case in THAT setting is to admit to the person that you don't have a valid, performance-related reason for deciding what you decided.
It doesn't matter if it was for religious reasons, or you hated the color of their blouse, if you can't point to real performance, you lose the case.
Granted, this is not the same situation, and I've said numerous times that I don't think the woman has a case. What harm can she really show from the doctors' decision not to treat her? It just seems a stretch.
My point, and it is a REALLY minor one, is that the very idea of sharing non-medical reasons for a treatment decision in a medical consultation seems flipping stupid to me. It comes from the background of watching managers in government shoot themselves and the department in the foot by saying too much in exit interviews.
And ultimately, I do believe that they had no call to tell her that they had a religious motivation for not treating her -- IF THAT IS WHAT THEY DID.
It's not a question of rudeness. It's a question of setting themselves up for a lawsuit. If a "no" will suffice, then a "no, with explanation" is a decision they should make only upon advice of counsel, IMHO.
They could have, for example, told her that they would not treat her, but that there was no medical reason that she couldn't go through with the procedure with someone else. That would allayed her possible fears that there was a medical barrier, and they could simply have refused to discuss it further.
They have absoluetly zero obligation to the woman.
And, privately dkw pointed out that even in those circumstances she might've sued. I agree. She might've. And she'd have even less of a case than she does now, apparently (again, we need more info).
In short, I can't really fathom a good reason for them to share a religious motivation for their treatment decision with her in the course of a medical consultation. I don't see how it helps the patient, and from the perspective of personnel-type interactions over the years, this just set up a red flag for me.
I imagine their lawyer has probably given them some better instructions on how to deal with this issue in the future. Simply to avoid the expense of having to defend themselves from even unwinable lawsuits.
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)