Newborn Baby Almost Refused Treatment Because She Has Two Moms

a reply to: NavyDoc
Simplified example, should a doctor in small town that is 90% white/straight/christian be allowed to refuse treatment to a minority group?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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?

Don't think its fascist at all, do you think it is?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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.

You've been digging through that fallacy argument book of yours and pulling them out for several posts now.

So far you've attempted (in no particular order):

- strawman
- red herring
- false dilemma
- appeal to authority
- ad hominem
- needling
- argument by question

So I have to ask... What page in the book are you on at this point ?


Rather stooping to the levels that you are now getting at these past few pages, why not just simply admit that other people are making valid points alongside your own, and let it be at that ?

Because continuing to go down the fallacy path will end my discussion with you post haste... particularly when you sink to the level of ad hominem and appeal to authority in one fell swoop.

Play nice in the sandbox or don't play at all.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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?

She is not a church.

She is a business that provides a paid service to the public.

Is it OK if she uses the "Mark of Ham" to refuse dark skin because God marked them?

From the judge in the case of the Florist who refused to serve a gay couple and just got her discrimination handed to her.

Yes, I know her state has an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBT.

I just like what this says:

The non-discrimination law in no way violates any constitutional principles, Ekstrom concluded, because, “For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief. In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even when the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.”

thinkprogress.org...

Wow, looks like I really made the natives restless with this one. I've read through most of the thread so far and it's certainly been interesting so far to say the least. I'll try and answer the questions asked of me now in the order I received them.

To Shepard64: "I thought doctors have some sort of rule stating they cannot discriminate?"

From the article.

Only 22 states have laws prohibiting doctors from refusing to treat patients based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The American Medical Association (AMA) strongly urges physicians not to deny care to LGBT people, but has no explicit rules regarding the practice. “Respecting the diversity of patients is a fundamental value of the medical profession and reflected in long-standing AMA ethical policy opposing any refusal to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination,” said the group in a statement.

So it's one of those loophole type situations basically. Because it's not spelled out in black and white that LGBT people are not to be discriminated against you can get away with it legally in some situations. Which to me sounds like more lawyer BS and word play since "Human Rights" should apply to all humans. Why we find it necessary to further break people down in to sub groups only serves to cause problems and allows for this kind of division in humanity. It perpetuates some kind of mental class system where it's ok to view and treat others as subhuman.

It was done to the Native American Savages, to Black Slaves viewed as 2/3 of a human, to Evil Muslim's recently, Jews, Women, etc. Now it's the LGBT group that gets their turn I guess. Guess we just don't ever learn a damn thing no matter how many times we go through it.


TruBrit:

I am sick, SICK to the back teeth of people using their faith as an excuse to behave poorly toward other people. Jesus gives his followers no permission to be a set of impossible bastards toward other people, because the vast majority of his message is LOVE, not punishment, not disgust, not chastisement, but LOVE!

DAMN this crap makes me angry.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I myself am not Christian and don't subscribe to any religion but am familiar with what they all try and teach at their core and this certainly isn't it. I don't know what the hell seems to be going on with Religion today but there are definitely some lost sheep who need some help. Let's hope they get it because right now they seem to have teamed up with the wolves and are giving them insider access to the kill the whole flock.

a reply to: Bone75

Well you know what, you are right in some respects. It is a mighty bold statement to make.

However, the written note you displayed in your post does absolutely nothing to illuminate the reasoning which lead to this doctors choice to stop seeing the patient, and her mothers.

This is just how it is, no ifs ands or buts. Either one is capable of treating people with love no matter who they are, or what they believe, or one is not. If one finds oneself in the camp of "not" then one is not following any religious doctrine worth a damn, one is just being a bigot. Love is not just squishy emotional feeling but also a determination to do right by folk, and doing right by folk in this case would be not giving a DAMN how many mothers are in the child's life, and treating the situation as if it were nothing to even have an opinion on.

In that regard, this doctor fails.

a reply to: mOjOm

I strongly disagree.

A doctor should be held to the exact same standard as Any Other professional - that is they have the Right to refuse service based on their beliefs just like a grocer can refuse service if you don't ware shirt and shoes into the business.

Seems you have a double standard. That's much worse than a doctor refusing service because of beliefs. If the kids two un-god fearing parents don't like it, they can go to an atheist doctor not a Christian doctor. They Do have a choice you know.

I'm sure there are tons of other doctors in that hospital that would have been willing to start this kids journey into the brainwashing of the medieval mainstream medical agenda.

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
a reply to: mOjOm

I strongly disagree.

A doctor should be held to the exact same standard as Any Other professional - that is they have the Right to refuse service based on their beliefs just like a grocer can refuse service if you don't ware shirt and shoes into the business.

Seems you have a double standard. That's much worse than a doctor refusing service because of beliefs. If the kids two un-god fearing parents don't like it, they can go to an atheist doctor not a Christian doctor. They Do have a choice you know.

I'm sure there are tons of other doctors in that hospital that would have been willing to start this kids journey into the brainwashing of the medieval mainstream medical agenda.

Oh, here we go again with the "refusal of service" vs discrimination.

Not even going to bother, as I know you've had this discussion multiple times in multiple threads.

And you still refuse to get the difference.

a reply to: mOjOm

Doctors in private practice can see who they want. That's why they tell expecting parents to select and pre-interview your pediatrician. That's why when I selected my pediatrician, the first thing I asked each practice was whether the Doctors, RNs and PAs or office staff have any problems with gays. Found the best pediatrician in the world. Just plan ahead. Don't expect that prejudice doesn't exist. Just make sure it isn't around you. Take personal responsibility.

a reply to: Annee

Your funny.. ya know.. you have a strong bent yourself.

My thing is YES, people should have the right to discriminate in this manner by refusal of service. I am not saying the child's health should be put at risk but why blame the doctor who Does have strong religious beliefs at all when it is just as simple to avoid confrontation and simply go to a like minded doctor.

Because this couple refused to do that, they are the ones discriminating unfairly against the doctor! - I know you won't get it so think about it for a while.

Instead, your solution will force a person to provide a service they are not comfortable in providing against their will. How fair is that? Not very, especially when you consider the child (seems your not thinking of the child..) common sense tells me if a doctor had a religious slant for a reason not to treat the child, then this child is apt to get Worse Care as this mans patient.

My compromise in getting the parents to only choose a like minded doctor is best for all concerned.

originally posted by: flammadraco:
Lets put this another way, the baby and her gay moms are in a car crash and the only person at the scene was this doctor, she refuses to treat them as she has strong religious beliefs, would this be acceptable?

Of course not. I'm a Christian and I don't agree with her refusing or transferring treatment either. It doesn't state anything about such a situation in the Bible. So, IMO, she should treat any and all patients without question.

However, I don't think you've demonstrated that you should be taken as anything other than a Discriminator and Bigot yourself.

As per the following:

originally posted by: flammadraco:
- My bigotry is towards all relgions. Look at what relgion has done to the World, it has held humanity back by thousands of years, and if relgious folk had their own way we'd still be living in the dark ages. Damn right I'm a bigot towards folk who believe the word of shepherds over scientist.

- by some numpty using religious scripture written my man who believed the sun was magic and the Earth was flat and using that same fairytale scripture in 2015 as an excuse to be a bigot!

- But we are not talking about patients we are talking about professionals using scripture written by shepherds as an excuse to be a bigot!

- how then has she allowed scripture written by men who believed the Earth as Flat from 2000 years ago to affect her judgement?

I agree the Doctor was wrong, however, you and the Doctor are two peas in the same pod.

Christian or Atheist, it's wrong. Period.

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
a reply to: mOjOm

I strongly disagree.

Yeah, so what.

A doctor should be held to the exact same standard as Any Other professional - that is they have the Right to refuse service based on their beliefs just like a grocer can refuse service if you don't ware shirt and shoes into the business.

How things are and how you think they should be aren't the same thing and for good reason. Your example also doesn't make sense. You're comparing one person refusing service because of their belief with another person refusing service because someone is breaking the rules of the establishment. Get a better example and try again.

Seems you have a double standard. That's much worse than a doctor refusing service because of beliefs. If the kids two un-god fearing parents don't like it, they can go to an atheist doctor not a Christian doctor. They Do have a choice you know.

What double standard is that???

You're obviously stuck in your brainwashed idea of Fearing Invisible Gods making it all but impossible for me to answer you since I don't like to argue with people that have lost all reason and can't think for themselves. Try someone else.

Yeah, they made their choice when they met this doctor the first time and nothing was said to them at the time making it the fault of the doctor. Try reading the article next time.

I'm sure there are tons of other doctors in that hospital that would have been willing to start this kids journey into the brainwashing of the medieval mainstream medical agenda.

"medieval medical agenda" huh??? Like I said, I don't like to argue with people that have lost all reason and can't think for themselves. Try someone else.

originally posted by: Losonczy
a reply to: mOjOm

Doctors in private practice can see who they want. That's why they tell expecting parents to select and pre-interview your pediatrician. That's why when I selected my pediatrician, the first thing I asked each practice was whether the Doctors, RNs and PAs or office staff have any problems with gays.

They had a pre-interview.

The two moms were upfront and honest with this doctor that they were a lesbian couple.

Therefore, they cancelled other appointments with other pediatricians.

It was only after "much soul searching", this doctor replaced herself with another doctor they had never met.

Dr. Rio sent them a letter, four months later.

originally posted by: Losonczy
a reply to: mOjOm

Doctors in private practice can see who they want. That's why they tell expecting parents to select and pre-interview your pediatrician. That's why when I selected my pediatrician, the first thing I asked each practice was whether the Doctors, RNs and PAs or office staff have any problems with gays. Found the best pediatrician in the world. Just plan ahead. Don't expect that prejudice doesn't exist. Just make sure it isn't around you. Take personal responsibility.

Yeah, they met with this doctor already and nothing was said when they met then. The doctor didn't say anything was a problem with they first met and they didn't know there was a problem until the day of the appointment when they got there only to find out from a 3rd party what had happened. Everyone but this doctor was taking personal responsibility. Try reading the article before you start making excuses for people who are in the wrong.

Besides all that, "the problem" in this case is that a Doctor won't treat a baby because she has personal religious issues with the mothers of the child. That's not only a crap doctor but crap follower of Faith as well. But I'm sure you have a reasonable excuse for that too, right???

a reply to: Annee

Oh sorry...then F Doctor Rio. She had her chance. You don't take that long to have a change of heart...or understanding of your heart.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

To be honest would you want a doctor treating your child who had issues with your lifestyle choices? Big fuss over nothing.

And what if that doctor was the only one available and the baby is in a serious need of emergency?

originally posted by: Losonczy
a reply to: Annee

Oh sorry...then F Doctor Rio. She had her chance. You don't take that long to have a change of heart...or understanding of your heart.

Thank you

The parents did do everything right. They were even legally married.

a reply to: mOjOm

What you claim happened did not happen. There was no emergency service needed, it was an appointment, and the Dr. should have every right to opt out of treating someone when another Dr. is there to provide the care needed.

With that said I disagree with the actions of this Dr., and my personal belief is they were wrong, but I support their ability to choose.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: WilsonWilson

To be honest would you want a doctor treating your child who had issues with your lifestyle choices? Big fuss over nothing.

And what if that doctor was the only one available and the baby is in a serious need of emergency?

Which literally has nothing to do with the story in question. There is no indication this Dr. would not have provided care in those circumstances.