Doctors Cannot Withold Care Based on Religious Belief

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
There is a certain theme here among some that our ability or right to work is a priviledge granted by the government. I can't agree with that; IMO the Constitution guarantees our right to pursuit whatever legal work we want.

I think there is a significant distiction between "care" (the word chosen by the OP) and services like elective proceedures. I doubt ANYONE would condone or suggest it appropriate to withhold necessary medical care on the basis of sex, race etc. But to force service providers to accept all clients? I have problems with that. If the person couldn't pay must the service provider still accept them? I think not. So, it's OK to discriminate for financial reasons but not some others? What makes those others so important that they are priviledged? Is it their *PC value*?

Let me ask, if a person seeking this service were to look up fertility clinics directory and saw one that espoused Christian (or some other) values, are they allowed to dismiss them from consideration on that basis? The answer, of course, is yes. So the person seeking the treatment may discriminate on some basis refused to the service provider themselves? How can that disparity be reconciled?

I think this issue of elective medical proceedures (and other services) is far less about "rights" and more about PC-ness.

And no, since it's elective I would have no problem if a male Muslim doctor refused elective proceedures on a woman because of religious beliefs. I have no problems with Arab-type resuatants refusing to serve me pork; the choice of a restaurant is "elective".

Fern

Well the thing is that as far as I am aware the state laws and the licensing procedures do not differentiate between 'care' and 'elective' procedures. This is true I would imagine because in a lot of cases that line is very blurry. So, to be safe it errs on the side of caution.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
There is a certain theme here among some that our ability or right to work is a priviledge granted by the government. I can't agree with that; IMO the Constitution guarantees our right to pursuit whatever legal work we want.

I think there is a significant distiction between "care" (the word chosen by the OP) and services like elective proceedures. I doubt ANYONE would condone or suggest it appropriate to withhold necessary medical care on the basis of sex, race etc. But to force service providers to accept all clients? I have problems with that. If the person couldn't pay must the service provider still accept them? I think not. So, it's OK to discriminate for financial reasons but not some others? What makes those others so important that they are priviledged? Is it their *PC value*?

Let me ask, if a person seeking this service were to look up fertility clinics directory and saw one that espoused Christian (or some other) values, are they allowed to dismiss them from consideration on that basis? The answer, of course, is yes. So the person seeking the treatment may discriminate on some basis refused to the service provider themselves? How can that disparity be reconciled?

I think this issue of elective medical proceedures (and other services) is far less about "rights" and more about PC-ness.

And no, since it's elective I would have no problem if a male Muslim doctor refused elective proceedures on a woman because of religious beliefs. I have no problems with Arab-type resuatants refusing to serve me pork; the choice of a restaurant is "elective".

Fern

Well the thing is that as far as I am aware the state laws and the licensing procedures do not differentiate between 'care' and 'elective' procedures. This is true I would imagine because in a lot of cases that line is very blurry. So, to be safe it errs on the side of caution.

I doubt that a heterosexual couple where the male had low sperm count, would consider artificial insemination to be an "elective" procedure. I really doubt that anyone would want that once you consider the consequences. Health insurance not covering any of these procedures......?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Shrug, no brainer. You shouldn't be allowed to refuse a service that you would otherwise offer because of a persons sexual orientation. On the other hand, the government has no business forcing a business to offer a service they otherwise wouldn't offer to anyone (IE you can't force a doctor to perform abortions).

Of course the government has no business telling a doctor that he has to perform an abortion. That's like forcing a heart surgeon to remove a brain tumor or anything like that. In this case, it was just some dumb doctor who was refusing to perform his/her services for a couple because the couple just happened to be lesbians.

So you would agree the government has no business forcing a pharmacy to carry a certain drug that they wouldn't otherwise offer? No discrimination is involved if they refuse to provide the service to everyone.

I assume you're referring to something like Plan B? A pharmacy is more general and it's job is to provide medicines, not make a decision about what drugs should and shouldn't be offered to people.

McDonalds job is to provide food to people. I don't think its the governments place to tell them they MUST sell whoppers though. They are not "offering" drugs. They are selling products. What products they choose to sell should be up to them. If they choose to not sell tylenol for whatever reason the government shouldn't step in and force them too.

A private business should not be allowed to discriminate but they should also not be forced to provide services they otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
-snip-
I doubt that a heterosexual couple where the male had low sperm count, would consider artificial insemination to be an "elective" procedure. I really doubt that anyone would want that once you consider the consequences. Health insurance not covering any of these procedures......?

Most states do not.

It's not clear if CA would either.

Link

Fern

 

[shrumpage]

I find this case disturbing:

The doctors denied the allegations. Brody said she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, heterosexual or homosexual.

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8aug19,0,2388017.story


This seems to have been glossed over by most of the thread. Take the homosexual out of the issue, is it still the same? I can understand a doctor not wanting to impregnate someone who is not married.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
A private business should not be allowed to discriminate but they should also not be forced to provide services they otherwise wouldn't.

These doctors were fertility specialists working in a fertility clinic.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Zenmervolt

"The government has no place issuing medical licenses."

The government can become far more accountable to the general population than what would amount to a special interest group when it comes to determining the minimum qualifications for its members. Such qualifications are public knowledge, derived from input from both the public and the professionals, and intended to be without bias, prejudice, or favoritism.

More accountable? You mean that there is the possibility of a competing government appearing to issue licenses that the public can turn to if their trust in the current issuing body fails? Because that's the ultimate in accountability. And that is only an option when the licensing body is a private entity.

ZV

Private bodies determining what is an acceptable medical license sounds like an absolutely awful idea to me. In other industries things like that work because you aren't dealing with unconscious people who have just been in a car accident and have minutes to live. In other industries people can examine the alternatives and make a choice. In this one there are a lot of people who can't. Not everything is solved best by private competition.

What makes these same people suddenly angels when they're part of a governmental standards-making body? Why is a governmental standards agency, where people are appointed, not elected, and where there is essentially no threat at all to your job if things get screwed up, somehow better than a professional body like the AMA?

If the AMA were setting standards instead of the government, we'd probably see most of the same people doing the work. The difference is that there wouldn't be governmental protection when something goes wrong.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Shrug, no brainer. You shouldn't be allowed to refuse a service that you would otherwise offer because of a persons sexual orientation. On the other hand, the government has no business forcing a business to offer a service they otherwise wouldn't offer to anyone (IE you can't force a doctor to perform abortions).

Of course the government has no business telling a doctor that he has to perform an abortion. That's like forcing a heart surgeon to remove a brain tumor or anything like that. In this case, it was just some dumb doctor who was refusing to perform his/her services for a couple because the couple just happened to be lesbians.

So you would agree the government has no business forcing a pharmacy to carry a certain drug that they wouldn't otherwise offer? No discrimination is involved if they refuse to provide the service to everyone.

I assume you're referring to something like Plan B? A pharmacy is more general and it's job is to provide medicines, not make a decision about what drugs should and shouldn't be offered to people.

So if they don't carry the brand of pain reliever I prefer, I can sue them for discrimination? Logically, that falls apart. A business has a right to choose what products it stocks.

ZV

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I find this case disturbing:

The doctors denied the allegations. Brody said she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, heterosexual or homosexual.

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8aug19,0,2388017.story


This seems to have been glossed over by most of the thread. Take the homosexual out of the issue, is it still the same? I can understand a doctor not wanting to impregnate someone who is not married.

Another thing omitted is the fact that the only reason the woman had to go to another clinic was confusion over the type of sperm she wanted to use. Had it been from a sperm bank, as opposed to *fresh*, others in the sued practice stood ready to provide the service; it's just that they didn't have the appropriate license (from I could tell neither did the defendant anyway).

Fern

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I find this case disturbing:

The doctors denied the allegations. Brody said she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, heterosexual or homosexual.

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8aug19,0,2388017.story


This seems to have been glossed over by most of the thread. Take the homosexual out of the issue, is it still the same? I can understand a doctor not wanting to impregnate someone who is not married.

Nah, I'm pretty sure I covered that early on; but isn't not nearly as easy to grind that axe you're wielding when you let facts get in the way.

 

[Caveman]

Originally posted by: Citrix
YEAaaaaa! more freedoms squashed by our courts! YIPPEEEEE lets all celebrate

Yup. Let's cram our beliefs down someone else's throat. Operation mind control. Where's the ACLU? Seriously...

 

[First]

Those who discriminate against homosexuals today will be looked back at 60 years from now the way we look back at guys like Strom Thurmond, who 60 years ago ran for president on a segregationist platform, the worst form of discrimination. One word; pathetic.

 

[Nebor]

Being a doctor, and being licensed by the state, your right to work, what you do and on whom is entirely at the leisure of the state. If someone can't pay, you still must treat them, as it is in society's interest to provide for the general welfare of citizens. As a doctor you are more a part of the societal machine than a mere member of society, and thus your activities in business are best decided by the state.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Being a doctor, and being licensed by the state, your right to work, what you do and on whom is entirely at the leisure of the state. If someone can't pay, you still must treat them, as it is in society's interest to provide for the general welfare of citizens. As a doctor you are more a part of the societal machine than a mere member of society, and thus your activities in business are best decided by the state.

Find a flat chick, have her walk up to a doctor and say she needs him to give her breast enhancement surgery and there will be no or minimal payment and see how far that gets her.


And there are hundreds of positions that involve some liscense from the state, let me know when you have a house built for free.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Darwin333
A private business should not be allowed to discriminate but they should also not be forced to provide services they otherwise wouldn't.

These doctors were fertility specialists working in a fertility clinic.

As noted by my previous posts, which is exactly why I said they should not be allowed to do what they did.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Those who discriminate against homosexuals today will be looked back at 60 years from now the way we look back at guys like Strom Thurmond, who 60 years ago ran for president on a segregationist platform, the worst form of discrimination. One word; pathetic.

That interesting, but isn't this issue about a doctor not wanting to provide fertility treatment to an unmarried woman?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Nebor
Being a doctor, and being licensed by the state, your right to work, what you do and on whom is entirely at the leisure of the state. If someone can't pay, you still must treat them, as it is in society's interest to provide for the general welfare of citizens. As a doctor you are more a part of the societal machine than a mere member of society, and thus your activities in business are best decided by the state.

Find a flat chick, have her walk up to a doctor and say she needs him to give her breast enhancement surgery and there will be no or minimal payment and see how far that gets her.


And there are hundreds of positions that involve some liscense from the state, let me know when you have a house built for free.

And if the doctor turned that "flat chick" down because she was black, gay, etc... then that would be the same as this case, which it is not. In this case the person paid and the money was taken. They then said Oh you are gay, we will not help you.

A doctor can turn people down based on payment if it is not life threatening. But they cannot turn down based on their religious views. This was the right decision by the courts.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Those who discriminate against homosexuals today will be looked back at 60 years from now the way we look back at guys like Strom Thurmond, who 60 years ago ran for president on a segregationist platform, the worst form of discrimination. One word; pathetic.

That interesting, but isn't this issue about a doctor not wanting to provide fertility treatment to an unmarried woman?

Absolutely, I wasn't commenting on that (and I'm not sure I really believe that excuse anyway, frankly).

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Those who discriminate against homosexuals today will be looked back at 60 years from now the way we look back at guys like Strom Thurmond, who 60 years ago ran for president on a segregationist platform, the worst form of discrimination. One word; pathetic.

That interesting, but isn't this issue about a doctor not wanting to provide fertility treatment to an unmarried woman?

Absolutely, I wasn't commenting on that (and I'm not sure I really believe that excuse anyway, frankly).

I do.

I can understand why a doctor would not want to help unmarried person get pregnant and something like would come out very early in the interview process.

An unmarried 18 year old girl walks in and demands to be artificially inseminated, it should not be against the law for that doctor to say "i am uncomfortable with doing this procedure for you, here is a list of other doctors who will provide what you are requesting."

If this was a life threating issue that required immediate medical attention, then the doctor SHOULD help said person. The same way we have laws requiring people to continue CPR in till a person is declared dead, or a medical professional arrives. But something that is completely optional and arguably unnecessary.

I see this case making its way to the USSC over the next decade.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I see this case making its way to the USSC over the next decade.

Indeed, only a creepy court in Cali could force people to inseminate lesbians with a turkey baster. Rather sick on the face of it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I see this case making its way to the USSC over the next decade.

Indeed, only a creepy court in Cali could force people to inseminate lesbians with a turkey baster. Rather sick on the face of it.

You know they artificially inseminated her the same way they artificially inseminate straight women, right? Do you find that 'rather sick on the face of it'?

Butterbean, I'm just wondering what you think about this. Did you know that right now... right this minute... hundreds of thousands of gay people around the world are having fabulous gay sex as I type this? That they're raising kids, they're having families, and above all else... the straight people are starting to love them for it. All your future holds is more and more fags having more and more i love you sex, raising more and more children, and having more and more people approve of it. It's only going to get worse from here for you. This thought makes me happy.

(or better I guess... a lot of people with your degree of homophobia are just repressed homosexuals. don't hate yourself!)

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Shrug, no brainer. You shouldn't be allowed to refuse a service that you would otherwise offer because of a persons sexual orientation. On the other hand, the government has no business forcing a business to offer a service they otherwise wouldn't offer to anyone (IE you can't force a doctor to perform abortions).

Of course the government has no business telling a doctor that he has to perform an abortion. That's like forcing a heart surgeon to remove a brain tumor or anything like that. In this case, it was just some dumb doctor who was refusing to perform his/her services for a couple because the couple just happened to be lesbians.

So you would agree the government has no business forcing a pharmacy to carry a certain drug that they wouldn't otherwise offer? No discrimination is involved if they refuse to provide the service to everyone.

I assume you're referring to something like Plan B? A pharmacy is more general and it's job is to provide medicines, not make a decision about what drugs should and shouldn't be offered to people.

If I operate a pharmacy and decide not to carry contraceptives, controlled substances, or any particular class of drugs I don't see a problem. I don't see it being against the law either. If we carry contraceptives on our shelf and I say "it's only for married heterosexuals", then obviously there's a problem.

It is not a pharmacy's job to offer all drugs to people, it's only their job to offer whatever they carry on their shelf. If your statement is the case, then the female who I told last week that we don't carry Nortitate(Brand for Metronidazole) gel would have sued me don't you think?

A state cannot order the owner of a pharmacy permit to order Oxycontin, Plan B, any drug, or any particular brand of a medication.
They can't force me to order an expensive medication like Intron A or Humira that costs thousands of dollars in which the patient's insurance won't cover either that will only end up spoiling in the fridge.

You can't go to BJ's and demand they carry blue berry muffins.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I see this case making its way to the USSC over the next decade.

Indeed, only a creepy court in Cali could force people to inseminate lesbians with a turkey baster. Rather sick on the face of it.

You know they artificially inseminated her the same way they artificially inseminate straight women, right? Do you find that 'rather sick on the face of it'?

Butterbean, I'm just wondering what you think about this. Did you know that right now... right this minute... hundreds of thousands of gay people around the world are having fabulous gay sex as I type this? That they're raising kids, they're having families, and above all else... the straight people are starting to love them for it. All your future holds is more and more fags having more and more i love you sex, raising more and more children, and having more and more people approve of it. It's only going to get worse from here for you. This thought makes me happy.

(or better I guess... a lot of people with your degree of homophobia are just repressed homosexuals. don't hate yourself!)

eskimospy - why waste your time on a person who is quite clearly trolling.....

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Those who discriminate against homosexuals today will be looked back at 60 years from now the way we look back at guys like Strom Thurmond, who 60 years ago ran for president on a segregationist platform, the worst form of discrimination. One word; pathetic.

That interesting, but isn't this issue about a doctor not wanting to provide fertility treatment to an unmarried woman?

Absolutely, I wasn't commenting on that (and I'm not sure I really believe that excuse anyway, frankly).

I do.

I can understand why a doctor would not want to help unmarried person get pregnant and something like would come out very early in the interview process.

An unmarried 18 year old girl walks in and demands to be artificially inseminated, it should not be against the law for that doctor to say "i am uncomfortable with doing this procedure for you, here is a list of other doctors who will provide what you are requesting."

If this was a life threating issue that required immediate medical attention, then the doctor SHOULD help said person. The same way we have laws requiring people to continue CPR in till a person is declared dead, or a medical professional arrives. But something that is completely optional and arguably unnecessary.

I see this case making its way to the USSC over the next decade.

It isn't.

I don't see what the problem in this case is. The doctor was kind enough to recommend another doctor practicing down the street for the patient to go to.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I see this case making its way to the USSC over the next decade.

Indeed, only a creepy court in Cali could force people to inseminate lesbians with a turkey baster. Rather sick on the face of it.

Do you ever contribute anything meaningful to any thread? 😕