It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Newborn Baby Almost Refused Treatment Because She Has Two Moms

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I am thankful you are not in charge. She made sure the child was cared for at the time that was scheduled. While I disagree morally, I can not take issue with her actions. If there was an emergency situation, and care was withheld, then I am right there with you. That is not what happened. There is no indication that would happen. The Dr. could have told the parents to reschedule, and yet went out of her way to find someone else so no one was inconvenienced.

Not what I would do, but I can not take issue with it.
edit on 21-2-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh I know she did make sure the child was taken care of. However if I was in charge, I would have fired her after what she did. Think about lawsuits. Think about relatively inexperienced doctors that she could have referred them to. I bet you it will be the end of her career.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Thing is what happens when shtf and she has to pick who to treat....on her past record I wouldn't like to be gay.
That is the point her personal opinion would get in the way.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No lawsuit is possible. If her career is over because no one wants to use her any more then that is the system working perfectly. If they keep using her, that is also the system working.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Thing is what happens when shtf and she has to pick who to treat....on her past record I wouldn't like to be gay.
That is the point her personal opinion would get in the way.

Why would she have to pick who to treat? Why would she be the only Dr. with no alternatives?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: boymonkey74



I agree had this been a Muslim doctor saying they could not treat an "Infidel" the same posters saying this Doctor had the right to not treat this baby would be signing a completely different tune!


But would you say the same thing if the roles were reversed and you had a Muslim patient who refused to be treated by an "infidel" doctor? Would you tell them to "STFU you bigot, you get who you get" or would you respect their wishes even if they were based on religious bigotry.


If the Muslim patient was paying for their treatment then they can be treated by who the hell they like as they are paying for it, however if the Muslim patient said that here in the UK using the NHS, they would have to put up and shut up as its free!

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


Erm no they dont. You can refuse doctors on the NHS.

I have done it a few times for skill related issues,



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He is talking about the SHTF situation.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He is talking about the SHTF situation.

And I am asking how what he says makes any sense. Hence my asking questions, perhaps you can answer them? Is there a magic weapon that targets only Doctors and only those who won't treat gays are spared? How else is she the only Dr. alive?
edit on 21-2-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He is saying that if SHTF situation does happen it may mean that she will choose to treat whoever she wants due to her belief and ignoring others. SHTF situation might come soon due to what is happening all over the world come to think of it.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In an emergency sotuation...a nature disaster etc where she may be put in charge of triage etc.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In an emergency sotuation...a nature disaster etc where she may be put in charge of triage etc.

First, she is not that kind of Dr., second, there is no indication that would ever be a problem since she went out of her way to make sure this child was cared for, and 3rd I did not realize gay people wore tags identifying themselves just in case of a disaster.

Seriously, the nonsense in this thread is astounding. What she did was wrong in my opinion, but the conclusions being jumped to here would make an Olympic pole vaulter jealous.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Again it does not matter. She has done it. She knew they were lesbians so she refused to service them. That makes her untrustworthy.

There are many examples in history of doctors refusing or giving inadequate care in emergency situations due to their beliefs.

We are not jumping to conclusions. We are looking at history.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Again it does not matter. She has done it. She knew they were lesbians so she refused to service them. That makes her untrustworthy.

There are many examples in history of doctors refusing or giving inadequate care in emergency situations due to their beliefs.

We are not jumping to conclusions. We are looking at history.

She ensured they were serviced. You clearly have little to no understanding of the type of practice she has. You are not looking at history, because the only relevant history is hers, and nothing in her history indicates your accusations are correct. Pole vaulters are jealous.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I'm sure that is the case Crazywok, but there was no need to introduce musliums in to thread in the first place. This is about a U.S. doctor and two gay woman.

You know what guys, had she just said nothing and allowed her colleagues to just say she had been otherwise engaged at a prior appointment and could not see them, then we would not be having this discussion, but no she had to let them know that due to her "praying" she could not treat their six day old baby. The doctor made this worse by alerting the gay couple to the reason why she could but treat their kid.

edit on 21.2.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ArcticLights

I'm not Atheist either. Stop labelling people when you don't had a clue. I believe in Deism meaning I believe a higher being created the universe but relgion is a man made thing and nothing to do with God, just bought about to control the masses two thousand years ago and written by men that believed the sun was magic and the earth was flat. Don't care if that's is your belief, but I have no respect for anyone using shepherds scripture as a reason to assert their relgion onto others.

Is that clear enough for you to try and label me again?

Edit - two peas in the same pod?? No, I would treat anyone if I was a doctor, don't care if you belief in fairytales or not I would still provide you with a service as I would any fellow human being! That makes me nothing like this nut job doctor!
edit on 21.2.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)

edit on 21.2.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)

edit on 21.2.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

You know what guys, had she just said nothing and allowed her colleagues to just say she had been otherwise engaged at a prior appointment and could not see them, then we would not be having this discussion, but no she had to let them know that due to her "praying" she could not treat their six day old baby. The doctor made this worse by alerting the gay couple to the reason why she could but treat their kid.

Actually she did not do that. She did not tell them. The new Dr. is the one who told the couple.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And the orginal doctor in question wrote that note to the couple! Which was not needed, there was no need to let the couple know why the bigot could not treat their baby, but as she did, she'll reap what she sowed.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And the orginal doctor in question wrote that note to the couple! Which was not needed, there was no need to let the couple know why the bigot could not treat their baby, but as she did, she'll reap what she sowed.

Somewhat false, somewhat true. The initial statement was made by the Dr. who took her spot. The letter was sent in February, much later, and we have no idea what prompted it. Your claim was had Dr. Roi not told them why we would not be having this discussion. Dr. Roi did not tell them, the other Dr. did, and Dr. Roi sent a letter after the damage had been done, most likely trying to smooth things over. The couple already knew at that point and there is no evidence the letter had any negative effect.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's quite obvious that this matter is a bowl of contention and there are those on ATS that believe what she did was acceptable and there are those that think this kind of behaviour is unbecoming of a professional in 2015, and that this kind of bigotry belongs in the dark ages.

No matter what you say, many folk including myself will never agree with your point and vice versa. Most of the last 14 pages on this thread are just duplicate and triplicate arguments. With that in mind I'm outer here!



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

I don't care who thinks what she did is right or wrong, really my only contention has been with people making misrepresentations. What you claimed happened did not happen, I corrected it, nothing more.




top topics



 
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join