Newborn Baby Almost Refused Treatment Because She Has Two Moms

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nope neo-nazis are also protected under human rights laws. At least in my country they are.

If the creature breaths, walks on two legs, is a legal citizen, and is capable of screaming "I hate Obama!"... then that creature is supposed to be protected under human rights laws.

If it's not, then you've got a big problem on your hands as a free and cohesive society.

I agree with the above which is why, under human rights, we have to accept some dicks to have a free society.

a reply to: NavyDoc

If the doctor in the OP had the same attitude as you then we would not be having this conversation.

That does not deviate from the fact that she used her belief in 2000 year old scripture when dealing with these woman. You have not used your beliefs to deny medical aid to terrorist, I'm sure she could have handled a couple of gay woman and their six day old baby.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Would you treat an ISIS terrorist if they required medical attention?

Yes. I have resuscitated terrorists who just killed some of my friends. I did it in Iraq and Afghanistan before, I'd do it again. Next stupid question.

I had a colleague step away because she could not save the life of someone who killed out colleagues. I let her go without judgment because, I'm not going to judge other people, I'm just going to get the job done.

Wow that takes some real integrity and dedication to your practice. I don't know that I could have done the same thing in your shoes. Major respect, NavyDoc. Seriously. I am so humbled right now.

Don't be. Everyone shot to hell who came before me in multiple deployments got all I could muster. I may have swore a bit and punched some walls after, but everyone I treated got everything I could give. That is my ethos.

If we ever get together for a drink or two, I could tell you a few stories.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
I think people on this thread are debating the wrong issue. The question is not "is it right to have gay parents" But rather: "Is is acceptable for a Doctor (Supposedly a highly respected profession) to turn away patients because of their personal beliefs?"

I believe the answer is No. I find it highly unprofessional and this story should be embarrassing for all of those currently involved in the profession. Doctor's are suppose to be some of the most highly educated member's of western society, to turn a baby away because you dont like the baby's family situation is absolutely horrific.

If your personal beliefs mean so much to you, dont take up occupation in a profession that is bound to throw you into the ring with many MANY different types of people, from ALL walks of life.

However, the baby wasn't "turned away." They baby was turned over to a provider who was able to perform her care in an objective and non-biased manner.

When confronted with a patient one has personal issues with, one has two ethical options:
1.) Put your personal feelings aside and treat the patient best you can.
2.) Recognize your own failings and pass the patient to a provider who can give the best treatment to the patient.

Doctors are not Gods. They are not special. They have failings and weak points and vulnerabilities like anyone else. It is more ethical to state that one has a problem, admit it, and get the patient the proper care elsewhere than to knuckle under to political correctness and establish care with someone you are uncomfortable with.

One doctor refused care of this baby and organised them to be seen by other doctor. That's discrimination.

"I'm sorry, I don't treat black patients, but I know a doctor who does" - exactly the same kind of discrimination. Let's not defend this, it is what it is Navydoc, as they say in yorkshire, you can't polish a turd and this story is a huge pile of sh!t

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

If the doctor in the OP had the same attitude as you then we would not be having this conversation.

That does not deviate from the fact that she used her belief in 2000 year old scripture when dealing with these woman. You have not used your beliefs to deny medical aid to terrorist, I'm sure she could have handled a couple of gay woman and their six day old baby.

No medical aid was denied. She saw that she was not comfortable giving service so she sought out and arranged for that service to be given.

Whereas I disagree with her reasoning, her actions were in keeping with ethical standards. The baby got care, without delay, in the same office.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Would you treat an ISIS terrorist if they required medical attention?

Yes. I have resuscitated terrorists who just killed some of my friends. I did it in Iraq and Afghanistan before, I'd do it again. Next stupid question.

I had a colleague step away because she could not save the life of someone who killed out colleagues. I let her go without judgment because, I'm not going to judge other people, I'm just going to get the job done.

Wow that takes some real integrity and dedication to your practice. I don't know that I could have done the same thing in your shoes. Major respect, NavyDoc. Seriously. I am so humbled right now.

Don't be. Everyone shot to hell who came before me in multiple deployments got all I could muster. I may have swore a bit and punched some walls after, but everyone I treated got everything I could give. That is my ethos.

If we ever get together for a drink or two, I could tell you a few stories.

If you ever make a visit to Tokyo hit me up. I'd love to hear some of your tales.

a reply to: NavyDoc
Then I apologise as i agree entirely with that. However your earlier post sounded like you were saying it would be acceptable to withhold treatment to a patient based on lifestyle even if it was the correct treatment.

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
I think people on this thread are debating the wrong issue. The question is not "is it right to have gay parents" But rather: "Is is acceptable for a Doctor (Supposedly a highly respected profession) to turn away patients because of their personal beliefs?"

I believe the answer is No. I find it highly unprofessional and this story should be embarrassing for all of those currently involved in the profession. Doctor's are suppose to be some of the most highly educated member's of western society, to turn a baby away because you dont like the baby's family situation is absolutely horrific.

If your personal beliefs mean so much to you, dont take up occupation in a profession that is bound to throw you into the ring with many MANY different types of people, from ALL walks of life.

However, the baby wasn't "turned away." They baby was turned over to a provider who was able to perform her care in an objective and non-biased manner.

When confronted with a patient one has personal issues with, one has two ethical options:
1.) Put your personal feelings aside and treat the patient best you can.
2.) Recognize your own failings and pass the patient to a provider who can give the best treatment to the patient.

Doctors are not Gods. They are not special. They have failings and weak points and vulnerabilities like anyone else. It is more ethical to state that one has a problem, admit it, and get the patient the proper care elsewhere than to knuckle under to political correctness and establish care with someone you are uncomfortable with.

One doctor refused care of this baby and organised them to be seen by other doctor. That's discrimination.

"I'm sorry, I don't treat black patients, but I know a doctor who does" - exactly the same kind of discrimination. Let's not defend this, it is what it is Navydoc, as they say in yorkshire, you can't polish a turd and this story is a huge pile of sh!t

No it's not. She felt she could not be objective so she arranged care with someone who could. That is both ethical and in keeping with standards of care.

a reply to: NavyDoc

As much as I repsect your opinions, we are never going to agree on this point.

I really need to pay some attettion to those at home now so I'm outta here!

Have a great night/weekend guys!

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
Then I apologise as i agree entirely with that. However your earlier post sounded like you were saying it would be acceptable to withhold treatment to a patient based on lifestyle even if it was the correct treatment.

Not acceptable. Just ethical and legal. If someone has an issue with me, I'd respect them if they transferred me to someone who didn't.

I disagree with this doctor's motivations, but I agree with her actions--in that she ensured that the family got the care. If she had just canceled the appointment and said "screw you" there would be a bigger issue. However, she didn't. She thought about it, saw she had an issue with it, and then transferred the care to an equally qualified provider in the same facility on the same day. That is actually more ethical and more honorable than a lot of fanatics would do.

Had she been in my practice, I would have metaphorically slammed her against the wall and said, "WTF is your problem. This is not what we are about." However, she is not in my practice nor my employee so I do not have that ability.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

As much as I repsect your opinions, we are never going to agree on this point.

I really need to pay some attettion to those at home now so I'm outta here!

Have a great night/weekend guys!

Ciao! Thanks for the intellectually stimulating discussion!

a reply to: NavyDoc

She thought about it, saw she had an issue with it, and then transferred the care to an equally qualified provider in the same facility on the same day. That is actually more ethical and more honorable than a lot of fanatics would do.

Had she done that exact same thing in a state that includes sexual orientation in its discrimination laws, this doctor would have a lawsuit on her hands.

So in one state it's "ethical and legal" and in the state next door it's not.

Apparently "ethics" is determined by black lines on a map.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

If the doctor in the OP had the same attitude as you then we would not be having this conversation.

That does not deviate from the fact that she used her belief in 2000 year old scripture when dealing with these woman. You have not used your beliefs to deny medical aid to terrorist, I'm sure she could have handled a couple of gay woman and their six day old baby.

No medical aid was denied. She saw that she was not comfortable giving service so she sought out and arranged for that service to be given.

Whereas I disagree with her reasoning, her actions were in keeping with ethical standards. The baby got care, without delay, in the same office.

Medical care was refused by a qualified doctor. What would have happened if other doctors had refused to take this baby on? Treading a fine line aren't we?

a reply to: NavyDoc
What she did may have been legal in her state but don't agree that it was ethical. Granted there are always a lot if grey areas around ethics but can't see that refusing to treat a child because of the lifestyle of the parents can be justified.
I understand that in this case there was no detriment to the child but how could this be guaranteed.
If you make the ethics standard that it is ok if the patient can seen by another doctor right away then you create a two tier system of acceptable discrimination between big cities and small towns.
A doctor in new York can be as big a bigot as he likes but in hicksville Alabama they would need to treat everyone.

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

If the doctor in the OP had the same attitude as you then we would not be having this conversation.

That does not deviate from the fact that she used her belief in 2000 year old scripture when dealing with these woman. You have not used your beliefs to deny medical aid to terrorist, I'm sure she could have handled a couple of gay woman and their six day old baby.

No medical aid was denied. She saw that she was not comfortable giving service so she sought out and arranged for that service to be given.

Whereas I disagree with her reasoning, her actions were in keeping with ethical standards. The baby got care, without delay, in the same office.

Medical care was refused by a qualified doctor. What would have happened if other doctors had refused to take this baby on? Treading a fine line aren't we?

Nope. The doctor who was uncomfortable with the situation found another doctor who was not uncomfortable before the parents even noticed. There was no delay in appointments nor was there a change in location. There was no refusal of care at all, just an adjustment of personnel. What ifs, could haves, do not count as we know what actually happened. what if zombies invaded at the appointment date? Not relevant.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc

She thought about it, saw she had an issue with it, and then transferred the care to an equally qualified provider in the same facility on the same day. That is actually more ethical and more honorable than a lot of fanatics would do.

Had she done that exact same thing in a state that includes sexual orientation in its discrimination laws, this doctor would have a lawsuit on her hands.

So in one state it's "ethical and legal" and in the state next door it's not.

Apparently "ethics" is determined by black lines on a map.

So you let politicians determine what is ethical for you?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
What she did may have been legal in her state but don't agree that it was ethical. Granted there are always a lot if grey areas around ethics but can't see that refusing to treat a child because of the lifestyle of the parents can be justified.
I understand that in this case there was no detriment to the child but how could this be guaranteed.
If you make the ethics standard that it is ok if the patient can seen by another doctor right away then you create a two tier system of acceptable discrimination between big cities and small towns.
A doctor in new York can be as big a bigot as he likes but in hicksville Alabama they would need to treat everyone.

Of course it was ethical. If one cannot provide the service, finding someone who can and making arrangements to get them together is the very nature of ethics. What would be unethical is saying, "I can't help you" and leaving them hanging--which is not what she did. Ethical behavior and giving people what ever they want, whenever they want, are not the same. Medicine is not a vending machine,

a reply to: NavyDoc
I think cranials point is the complete opposite. Just because what she did was legal does not make it ethical.

a reply to: ScepticScot

This is a very important point that bears repeating:

A doctor in new York can be as big a bigot as he likes but in hicksville Alabama they would need to treat everyone.

If radical theist doctor in Hicksville, Alabama decides it's against their religious beliefs to take on a gay Asian as a patient, and the state discrimination laws back them up.... it looks like Mr Gay Asian is driving two hours to the next town to get that sore throat treated.... and Mr Gay Asian had better hope the doctor in that town isn't quite as "ethically choosy" as the first one.

a reply to: NavyDoc
This isn't about giving them whatever they want. It is about a medical professional refusing to treat a child based on the lifestyle of the patents. If she couldn't get the appointment covered do you belief the doctor should have kept the appointment herself even if it went against her religious principles?