posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| 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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
