Newborn Baby Almost Refused Treatment Because She Has Two Moms

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

The fact that she made alternate arraignments that did not inconvenience the patient or her parent made it ethical. Not taking on the patient/Dr relationship is not unethical in and of itself, as I clearly explained earlier--there are specific standards laid out. It is more unethical to engage in a relationship you are uncomfortable with than it is to arrange for alternative treatment. In such a case, the most ethical move, IMHO, it to connect the patient with a physician that was more aligned with their situation. It would have been unethical not to do so.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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?

Do you think it was better for the Dr to accept a patient she was uncomfortable with or refer her to a doctor that was more accepting?

a reply to: NavyDoc
I would think that if the sexuality of a patients parents make her so uncomfortable she can't make objective medical decisions then she should probably give serious thought to a career change.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
I would think that if the sexuality of a patients parents make her so uncomfortable she can't make objective medical decisions then she should probably give serious thought to a career change.

Why? She may be able to objectively treat 99/100 patients. Who are we to judge?

Her employer certainly should be able to fire her over this.
Patients certainly should be able to deny her their business over this.

I just disagree with the government censuring people over thoughts we disagree with. I don't think this an unreasonable position.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Do you think it was better for the Dr to accept a patient she was uncomfortable with or refer her to a doctor that was more accepting?

Do we get a third choice ?

Or are those the only two options available ?

I chose for there to be no doctors running a public medical practice that cannot perform their duties to a percentage of the populous due to their fundamental religious beliefs.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc

Do you think it was better for the Dr to accept a patient she was uncomfortable with or refer her to a doctor that was more accepting?

Do we get a third choice ?

Or are those the only two options available ?

I chose for there to be no doctors running a public medical practice that cannot perform their duties to a percentage of the populous due to their fundamental religious beliefs.

What about a private medical practice? Or do you dislike freedom of choice?

If she was employed by the state--certainly she should be fired.
If she was employed by a group or a hospital or a consortium, certainly they should have that option.

But what if she was a private individual in private practice?

a reply to: NavyDoc
I think when it comes to outright bigotry judging isn't just appropriate, it is required. Would you consider it acceptable behaviour for a doctor to refuse to treat black patients?

a reply to: NavyDoc

But what if she was a private individual in private practice?

Private as in, by membership only ?

Or is that private practice performing a public service, no private membership required ?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc

Do you think it was better for the Dr to accept a patient she was uncomfortable with or refer her to a doctor that was more accepting?

Do we get a third choice ?

Or are those the only two options available ?

I chose for there to be no doctors running a public medical practice that cannot perform their duties to a percentage of the populous due to their fundamental religious beliefs.

What about a private medical practice? Or do you dislike freedom of choice?

If she was employed by the state--certainly she should be fired.
If she was employed by a group or a hospital or a consortium, certainly they should have that option.

But what if she was a private individual in private practice?

Again the difference being what she did being legal in her state does not make it right or ethical.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
I think when it comes to outright bigotry judging isn't just appropriate, it is required. Would you consider it acceptable behaviour for a doctor to refuse to treat black patients?

He'd get fired by his employer and he'd probably go out of business in a fortnight. Do you find it acceptable that the government make decisions for you?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc

Do you think it was better for the Dr to accept a patient she was uncomfortable with or refer her to a doctor that was more accepting?

Do we get a third choice ?

Or are those the only two options available ?

I chose for there to be no doctors running a public medical practice that cannot perform their duties to a percentage of the populous due to their fundamental religious beliefs.

What about a private medical practice? Or do you dislike freedom of choice?

If she was employed by the state--certainly she should be fired.
If she was employed by a group or a hospital or a consortium, certainly they should have that option.

But what if she was a private individual in private practice?

Again the difference being what she did being legal in her state does not make it right or ethical.

Right? That is a subjective opinion that I'm not going to judge. I'm certain that there are people who believe that things you do are not "right."

Ethical? Certainly. She found alternative arrangements that did not delay care or inconvenience the patient. That is the very definition of ethical. In medical ethics, if you cannot objectively treat your patient, you are bound to find them an alternate provider--which is what she did.

I could only read as far as the first page before I became very frustrated. Reading people arguing about how having two mothers or fathers is harmful to children. How they need the strong father figure and the loving mother figure. Instead of complaining about the financially stable, normal, well adjusted and successful kids that come from gay parents perhaps you should be more worried about all the kids that are barely being brought up by their welfare sucking, young, stupid, single slutty mothers. The ones who keep spitting out kids by multiple guys who are whoring around who have no intention of ever caring for any of their children. THESE are the problem parents and future problem kids/adults. Uneducated, unmotivated, young kids having kids having kids.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Do you find it acceptable that the government make decisions for you?

If individual citizens are incapable of not discriminating against their fellow brethren, then I guess there's not much choice in the matter but to allow government to intervene and enforce that everybody plays nice in the sandbox.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc

Do you find it acceptable that the government make decisions for you?

If individual citizens are incapable of not discriminating against their fellow brethren, then I guess there's not much choice in the matter but to allow government to intervene and enforce that everybody plays nice in the sandbox.

Judged by whom? What makes your judgment of what is appropriate any more valid than hers? We already see that you have no clue about medical practices, given the assumption that the AMA deals with licensing, how are you thus qualified to comment on this issue?

a reply to: NavyDoc
In a democracy yes absolutely. The government make decisions for us all the time. How fast we can drive. How much tax we pay. Can I dump nuclear waste in the local river. Can I play loud thrash metal at 3am. Those kind of things. Governments cant regulate our thoughts they can and often should regulate our behavior if it affects other people.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Judged by whom? What makes your judgment of what is appropriate any more valid than hers? We already see that you have no clue about medical practices, given the assumption that the AMA deals with licensing, how are you thus qualified to comment on this issue?

We see that you are not religious, given your admittance in your earlier posts, so how are you thus qualified to comment on this issue ?

Any other strawpeople you want to pull from your sphincter ?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
In a democracy yes absolutely. The government make decisions for us all the time. How fast we can drive. How much tax we pay. Can I dump nuclear waste in the local river. Can I play loud thrash metal at 3am. Those kind of things. Governments cant regulate our thoughts they can and often should regulate our behavior if it affects other people.

But how did this adversely affect another person? She had medical care, without delay, at the same appointment time and in the same facility as planned.

Or should the state regulate thoughts and beliefs too?

The state demanding people provide services they are uncomfortable with is in direct opposite to democracy. The word you are looking for is fascism.

a reply to: NavyDoc
Anti discrimination laws are fascist?, really not sure about that one.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc

Judged by whom? What makes your judgment of what is appropriate any more valid than hers? We already see that you have no clue about medical practices, given the assumption that the AMA deals with licensing, how are you thus qualified to comment on this issue?

We see that you are not religious, given your admittance in your earlier posts, so how are you thus qualified to comment on this issue ?

Any other strawpeople you want to pull from your sphincter ?

Not a strawman. You haven't a clue as to who or what determines the qualifications of medical licensure. You haven't a clue that emergency and life saving situations are already covered under existing civil and criminal law. I'm a physician, I know the ethical and legal rules and laws, you are not, so I am indeed qualified. You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

In fact, you obviously don't even know what a "strawman" is. Here let me help:

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

I haven't done that. I've just pointed out that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. That is not a "strawman" argument.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
Anti discrimination laws are fascist?, really not sure about that one.

Well think about it. Is the government punishing behavior that is disliked and rewarding behavior that is liked fascist or not?