posted
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.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
I am pleased that in this case doctors are not legally obligated to perform such procedures against their conscience.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 )
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
