Newborn Baby Almost Refused Treatment Because She Has Two Moms

a reply to: NavyDoc

People have the human right to practice their relgion, but the moment that right infringes on someone's "Human Rights" then relgion takes second place and in my ideal world religious rights would rank third after Animal rights.

Look at ISIS killing infidels, is it their human right to do this? they are using their warped view of their relgion to commit atrocities and deny others their human rights. When do religious rights over step the mark in your opinion?

originally posted by: Annee
We had a similar experience with my grandson, but not for discrimination reasons. Ours was a switch in insurance.

These moms searched for a doctor who followed their holistic beliefs. It seems they actually met with her and discussed their holistic beliefs and felt very strongly that they had found the perfect pediatrician for their baby.

This search to find the "perfect" doctor for your newborn can be very emotionally charged and exhausting. I know.

On the emotional level of new parents ----- it is not so simple as being "assigned" to a doctor your first choice has decided will fit you better.

I feel no sympathy for this doctor choosing her personal faith over caring for this newborn.

Ah, insurance is tough. When a provider signs a contract with a certain insurance, be it private or government, there are many stipulations and regulations that follow. For example, if I see a Medicaid patient, I must take the 3 dollar copay stipulated by contract, regardless, or I am in violation of my contract with Medicaid.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

People have the human right to practice their relgion, but the moment that right infringes on someone's "Human Rights" then relgion takes second place and in my ideal world religious rights would rank third after Animal rights.

Look at ISIS killing infidels, is it their human right to do this? they are using their warped view of their relgion to commit atrocities and deny others their human rights. When do religious rights over step the mark in your opinion?

But does someone have the "human right" to demand the services of another individual?

a reply to: NavyDoc

I think that if this had been an emergency situation, and the doctor refused service on religious grounds there would be a case for human rights violations. No practicing doctor should be legally able to refuse service entirely on religious grounds.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

People have the human right to practice their relgion, but the moment that right infringes on someone's "Human Rights" then relgion takes second place and in my ideal world religious rights would rank third after Animal rights.

Look at ISIS killing infidels, is it their human right to do this? they are using their warped view of their relgion to commit atrocities and deny others their human rights. When do religious rights over step the mark in your opinion?

But does someone have the "human right" to demand the services of another individual?

ISIS kills people and violates their right to life. However, who has a right to the services of another, regardless their job or degree?

a reply to: NavyDoc

If that service is offered to everyone then yes, everyone should be offered the same service no matter what!

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think that if this had been an emergency situation, and the doctor refused service on religious grounds there would be a case for human rights violations. No practicing doctor should be legally able to refuse service entirely on religious grounds.

The above is already illegal and unethical by all medical standards and state and federal laws. One cannot refuse life and limb saving care in any ER in the US and, in such a situation, a physician is not justified legally or ethically to refuse care. As I posted earlier, there are specific ethical rules about transferring care and, a patient bleeding out in front of you is not it. Such a physician would face both criminal and civil trials.

The case in this discussion is nowhere near that. The baby did not get refused care (the thread title is disingenuous), she did not get a delay in care, she did not have any ill results, she just was seen by a different physician.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

If that service is offered to everyone then yes, everyone should be offered the same service no matter what!

So if Joe and Bob come into my ER with the same complaint, the same MRI, but Joe has a record of selling his narcotics on the black market, he should get the same pain killers that Bob does, physician judgment be damned?

a reply to: NavyDoc

As I pointed out, since the baby had not been seen by this physician, there had not been a Dr/patient relationship established. I mention this concept over and over again, because this is a key concept in such issues--one that most people do not understand. One is not obligated, in any way, shape or form, to a patient that one has not seen or evaluated.

You missed this part:

Existing case law conveys the well-established default rule that initiation of the doctor-patient relationship is voluntary for both parties. But there is a catch – physicians are only free to refuse to accept a prospective patient if their reason for doing so is not prohibited by contract (e.g., with their employer or an insurance company) or by law.

Prospective patient... meaning before the relationship is established.

A prospective patient cannot be turned away based on race, religion, ethnicity (and in some states sexual orientation) based on state/federal discrimination laws and/or contract agreement via employer or insurance company.

Another words, if you are Asian and you phone a doctor to make an appointment to meet and greet, the doctor cannot turn you away because you are Asian. They would be breaking discrimination laws. But they can turn you away for being an a-hole because being an a-hole is not protected under law.



The paragraph you quoted from my link is talking about situations (political views, not following medical advice, patient is an a-hole, etc) where there is no established anti-discrimination laws involved:

Similarly, rejecting a patient for his political views, inability to pay, refusal to abide by medical advice, decision to smoke (or play contact sports?), or other characteristics not protected by law would fall completely within the realm of physician discretion.

Prospective or established doctor-patient relationship matters none when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. Doctors must abide by these laws according to the state they practice in. Beyond these particular laws, doctors can refuse/transfer/cancel medical care at their reasonable discretion, dependant upon the individual situation.

Again, this thread is about discrimination laws (race, creed, religion, and in some states sexual orientation)... not about whether a doctor and patient (potential or established) agree on what their favourite football team is.

As it turns out, Michigan does not have any discrimination laws established with regards to sexual orientation, therefore this doctor did not break any laws.

But many people, are questioning this doctor's ethical principles. If this doctor had "transferred care" because the prospective patient was a black buddhist, half the country would be up in arms about it. But because homosexuals (in Michigan) are not protected under the same laws as a black buddhist, everybody's like: "Meh, find a new doctor."

The point is:

- Should physicians be held at a higher standard of morals, ethics, and principles ?
- Should physicians be allowed to place their religious beliefs before their public medical practices ?
- Should the LGBT community, or black community, or buddhist community just "get over it" ?

a reply to: NavyDoc
Yes if it is the right treatment. Doctors make medical decisions not moral ones.

a reply to: NavyDoc

What's that to do with religious beliefs? That has a more medical and criminal element and everyone would be treated in the same manner under those circumstances by whatever policy the ER had in place. No matter if they were green, pink or orange.

Come now NavyDoc You're better than that. You know exactly the point I made when I said treating everyone equal, but for ease of reference, people should have the same service provided to them no matter their sex, age, gender, race, relgion, sexual orientation, disability and so on.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc

As I pointed out, since the baby had not been seen by this physician, there had not been a Dr/patient relationship established. I mention this concept over and over again, because this is a key concept in such issues--one that most people do not understand. One is not obligated, in any way, shape or form, to a patient that one has not seen or evaluated.

You missed this part:

Existing case law conveys the well-established default rule that initiation of the doctor-patient relationship is voluntary for both parties. But there is a catch – physicians are only free to refuse to accept a prospective patient if their reason for doing so is not prohibited by contract (e.g., with their employer or an insurance company) or by law.

Prospective patient... meaning before the relationship is established.

A prospective patient cannot be turned away based on race, religion, ethnicity (and in some states sexual orientation) based on state/federal discrimination laws and/or contract agreement via employer or insurance company.

Another words, if you are Asian and you phone a doctor to make an appointment to meet and greet, the doctor cannot turn you away because you are Asian. They would be breaking discrimination laws. But they can turn you away for being an a-hole because being an a-hole is not protected under law.



The paragraph you quoted from my link is talking about situations (political views, not following medical advice, patient is an a-hole, etc) where there is no established anti-discrimination laws involved:

Similarly, rejecting a patient for his political views, inability to pay, refusal to abide by medical advice, decision to smoke (or play contact sports?), or other characteristics not protected by law would fall completely within the realm of physician discretion.

Prospective or established doctor-patient relationship matters none when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. Doctors must abide by these laws according to the state they practice in. Beyond these particular laws, doctors can refuse/transfer/cancel medical care at their reasonable discretion, dependant upon the individual situation.

Again, this thread is about discrimination laws (race, creed, religion, and in some states sexual orientation)... not about whether a doctor and patient (potential or established) agree on what their favourite football team is.

As it turns out, Michigan does not have any discrimination laws established with regards to sexual orientation, therefore this doctor did not break any laws.

But many people, are questioning this doctor's ethical principles. If this doctor had "transferred care" because the prospective patient was a black buddhist, half the country would be up in arms about it. But because homosexuals (in Michigan) are not protected under the same laws as a black buddhist, everybody's like: "Meh, find a new doctor."

The point is:

Should physicians be held at a higher standard of morals, ethics, and principles ?
Should physicians be allowed to place their religious beliefs before their public medical practices ?
Should the LGBT community, or black community, or buddhist community just "get over it" ?

You forget that part "not prohibited by contract." Certainly if her employer has that in her employment agreement, she can be fired for that and I've said that multiple times.

You quoted this:

Similarly, rejecting a patient for his political views, inability to pay, refusal to abide by medical advice, decision to smoke (or play contact sports?), or other characteristics not protected by law would fall completely within the realm of physician discretion.

Yep. Not prohibited by law falls under physician discretion which is what she did and did fulfill appropriately.

Nonsense on the last part. Had she transferred care because the patient was a neo-Nazi, you would not give a #. You wouldn't care. You are only getting upset because of the protected class and the religion of the physician.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
Yes if it is the right treatment. Doctors make medical decisions not moral ones.

Wrong. Drs make moral, ethical, medical, and character decisions. One patient may be perfectly reasonable to entrust with a month's supply of narcotic pain killers, another, with exactly the same medical condition, may not be trustable with 120 oxycodone. EVERY decision is a combination of the above for a good physician. If all medical decisions were made by algorithm, a frigging machine could do it. There is more to it and TV does not teach you what it is.

a reply to: NavyDoc

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

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

What's that to do with religious beliefs? That has a more medical and criminal element and everyone would be treated in the same manner under those circumstances by whatever policy the ER had in place. No matter if they were green, pink or orange.

Come now NavyDoc You're better than that. You know exactly the point I made when I said treating everyone equal, but for ease of reference, people should have the same service provided to them no matter their sex, age, gender, race, relgion, sexual orientation, disability and so on.

I do know better than that, I do know better than you, which is why I understand that "everyone must be treated the same" is an ignorant principle. Every patient is an individual.

Religion, not religion, atheist, Buddhist, Satanist, it does not matter. When one takes chronic, primary care into consideration the whole of the person, both of the provider and patient, must be taken into consideration and any conflicts (on either side) will result in less than optimum treatment. Just because you dislike religion or deeply held beliefs does not invalidate such things for others and it is a bit arrogant to declare such for other people.

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.

a reply to: NavyDoc
Sorry I really hope I am misunderstanding you. Are you really claiming that you would base the treatment you provide on a moral judgement of the patient?

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.

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.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
Sorry I really hope I am misunderstanding you. Are you really claiming that you would base the treatment you provide on a moral judgement of the patient?

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that:

1: a lot of decisions are subjective and based on the individual assessment and not appropriate to "once size fits all" bureaucratic mandates.
2: some treatments are based on an assessment of the individual patient. If you have a guy coming into the ER for the 10th time that month with "backpain" and he is "allergic" to everything except oxycodone 10mg without Tylenol added, one has to make a subjective judgment about if one is going to give him the requested narcotic. Believe it or not, some patients are not sincere.