A Dr. Refusing To Treat Gay's Baby?. W/Conscience Clause Can Refuse Vital Or Medical Services?.

[TheMastersNemesis]

I have written about this issue before. Declaring "conscience" when denying services has really dangerous potential. What about the provision of vital services? Will emergency responders & medical personnel refuse to treat someone they do not accept as part of society. Will Catholic practitioners refuse to treat Jews or Moslems or nonbelievers? Will Moslems or Jews or nonbelievers refuse to treat Christians?

This "conscience" bullshit can really go beyond LGBT rights. So will questionnaires be designed to find out if a person is gay or has an unacceptable lifestyle before services are provided? Right now we have a problem with religious hospitals refusing to provide reproductive services not approved of. And we have pharmacies refusing to fill certain prescriptions.

How would you like to go to a Christian Scientist hospital or medical clinic. Here are some prayers for your prescription for your cancer.

Will firemen or policemen refuse to help LBGT people in an emergency? Let them be robbed or let their house burn down or refuse to try to save someone. If a person ends up in ER will the medical staff have to be polled to see who will treat a patient?

This whole monstrosity has so many terrible possibilities. It should be illegal or a person should be legally liable for NOT providing a vital service. We could end up like the Middle Mess the way things are going.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. "Will firemen or policemen refuse to help LBGT people in an emergency?"

Some time ago you posted a thread where you openly declared you would refuse to render aid to conservatives.

[yeoman6987]

2. Holy cow!

How can an individual slam discrimation at thesame time doing it themselves? How does that work?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. It can be done rather easily -- if emotion governs instead of principle.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. Not sure if this thread is referring to the Michigan pediatrician or not

But I watched that story on CNN last night. It was not an emergency situation, and while I don't understand the mindset behind refusing new patients due to the sexual orientation of the parents, I do have some level of respect for the doctor. She didn't feel that she could build the kind of bond with the lesbian parents that she does with the parents of her other patients.

Unreasonable? Yes, I think it is. However, I would prefer that a doctor tell me that so that I can find someone that CAN form that bond rather than have my child be treated by someone that isn't able, for whatever reason, to give his or her all to the important doctor/patient relationship.

[yardwork]

8. Do you have any empathy for those of us who are constantly disctimated against?

I guess it's easy to dismiss discrimination when it happens to somebody else.

How would you like it if every time you walked into a store or office there was s good chance you would be refused service?

Think that would be easy to live with? Just suck it up and move on? That's what we live with, and apparently to you that's just fine.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. I hope you didn't pay for your mindreading license

Because it's worthless.

I'm not dismissing the discrimination - I don't understand the mindset behind it, and I think it's wrong. However, I would prefer that a doctor tell me she can't do her best, however ridiculous her reasons might be, than take my child on as a patient and possibly not do her best.

[yardwork]

11. I would prefer that other people make an effort.

You said that you had respect for the pediatrician, hence my questioning your empathy.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. We are talking about a child here so I can almost see what you are saying, but in order to

change bigotry and prejudice those being discriminated against have to be willing to place themselves in the middle of the prejudice. Those who are prejudice would love nothing more than to have LGBTs just go somewhere else so they don't have to deal with them. No, in order to fight prejudice you have to be right in their face with it. You cannot let them segregate the population due to some uncomfortable feelings. I would imagine those African Americans who sat at those lunch counters or went to the same schools, or drank from the same fountains had to have been faced with some incredibly uncomfortable feelings, but that is exactly what they had to endure in order to end the discrimination.

[yardwork]

12. Exactly.

And today there is less sympathy for those who chose to discriminate.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. I do understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree

I guess that to me, when it comes to my child's physician, I would want to know if there were ANYTHING that might be keeping that doctor from having the kind of open relationship that I think is key to working as a team to keep a child healthy.

A wedding cake, flowers, catering, etc...I'm right there with you, 100%. My child's health...no, I think I'd want to know and avoid a doctor that felt that way. That doesn't mean I condone it, just that I wouldn't want my child under that physician's care.

[Revanchist]

14. While medical practitioners can choose to not take on someone as a patient

It is normally for medical conditions or habits such as smoking or obesity. The AMA considers refusing a patient due to religion, sexual orientation, or gender identification as unethical, although on the last one I would understand if the physician talks to the patient if they have reservations due to medical reasons and they don't feel that they can provide the level of care the patient deserves.

[Quantess]

5. Here's the video.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/04/04/bts-smerconish-gay-couple-says-doctor-refused-to-treat-baby.cnn

[malaise]

6. Using this logic blood or organ donors could insist

that no ReTHUGs or FUndies have access to their blood or organs. I'd love to see their reactions.

[boston bean]

7. They already make these kinds of judgments regarding pregnant women.

What makes anyone think they wouldn't do it to someone else, is beyond me.

[KittyWampus]

13. It's part of the neo-feudalism. Society broken up into fragmented,separate groups.

There is a reason why some wanted "in god we trust" to replace e pluribus unum.

I am a medieval history geek. It's becoming more and more obvious what we are devolving into.