Newborn Baby Almost Refused Treatment Because She Has Two Moms

a reply to: and14263

This is not the primary issue of the OP. Many children are raised in single parent households (and same sex households) for one reason or another. What if the mom or dad dies, or leaves, or what if mom and dad are killed.

Would it be better for the child to go into the foster care system rather than living with Aunt Jane and Aunt Mary?

Quoting 19th century-era psychology seems a bit misplaced.

Let's focus:

The point directs to the character of a doctor (who presumably has taken the Hippocratic Oath) who refuses to treat a baby.

a reply to: and14263

So...... lets not make this an LGBT issue and make it about children growing up without two parents and start with the ten million single mums in the USA who in your opinion will bring up their children that will have behavioural issues. At least in a an LGBT parenting environment there will be on most occasions be two parents (same sex or not, has to be better than one parent). With this in mind, what do you propose we do with these ten million single mom's, should they be sterilised so they cannot bring more unruly children into the world. Should they be told they cannot have children unless they are willing to stay in an abusive relationship so that their children can be bought up with a father figure....

Not sure where you are going with this but Id say, stay away from the LGBT issue of parenting if its all about one dad and one mum then attack the social issue of single moms in the US and i'd probably have a little more respect for your opinion!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: and14263

This is not the primary issue of the OP. Many children are raised in single parent households (and same sex households) for one reason or another. What if the mom or dad dies, or leaves, or what if mom and dad are killed.

Would it be better for the child to go into the foster care system rather than living with Aunt Jane and Aunt Mary?

Of course not, you are assuming I believe this because I value the effects of traditional/natural family structure. Incorrect assumption.

Quoting 19th century-era psychology seems a bit misplaced.

In your opinion. In mine it is very relevant and not all dated from that era.

Let's focus:

The point directs to the character of a doctor (who presumably has taken the Hippocratic Oath) who refuses to treat a baby.

Sorry for going off topic, thanks for putting me back on topic, I appreciate the direction.

a reply to: flammadraco

At least in a an LGBT parenting environment there will be on most occasions be two parents (same sex or not, has to be better than one parent).

You are making an assumption here which in my opinion is incorrect.

With this in mind, what do you propose we do with these ten million single mom's, should they be sterilised so they cannot bring more unruly children into the world. Should they be told they cannot have children unless they are willing to stay in an abusive relationship so that their children can be bought up with a father figure...

Single parenting is not an ideal situation but the drastic measures you propose are childish and miss the point completely.

As I said before, it's about the traditional family structure and the natural positive impacts on the psyche of a growing child this has.

I do not expect you to understand.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I'm not American so i wouldnt know if they have an oath.
However we are not talking i dont think from the article about an emergency doctor refusing a baby treatment which could risk health.
We are talking about a GP (not sure of the american version of that) who didnt want to be the childs doctor because she opposed tha parent slifstyle.
So yes you can think it's terrible, but the title of the thread stated the child was almost refused healthcare this is very misleading, as this is not what happened.

Hippocratic Oath ?

More like Hypocritic Oath.

Apparently medical licenses come in Cracker Jack boxes these days.

a reply to: and14263

Childish lol...... whatever mate second time you have insulted me in less than a week! Cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen buddy!

I was turning the tables, I was using a social issue about parenting which in my mind has a worse effect on a childhood. Lets put it this way;

Children born to Single Mothers, how many of these births were planned and wanted?

Gay Parents, how many of these children were planned and wanted?

Guess what the answer most likely is and then guess which household the child would probably be nurtured and loved and provided for. Not saying that Single Moms would not love and nurture their children, but lets be honest how many of these kids are going to get the best out of their childhood in a single parent household?

Quick question, do you believe that growing up in an LGBT loving household is worse than growing up in a single parent household?

The couple should be happy it turned out this way. Now they don't have to worry about a psychotic that believes a unseen sky fairy tells a doctor what to do when it comes to treating their patients.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: and14263

Children born to Single Mothers, how many of these births were planned and wanted?

Gay Parents, how many of these children were planned and wanted?

You're missing the point.

It'snot about motivation. It's not about the love available. It's not about the personalities or actions of the parents. Its about the positive effect the traditional family structure has on the growing psyche of a child.

As I said, I do not expect you to understand and clearly you do not because yet again you are asking for black/white answers on unrelated assumptive points.

If I have insulted you I am sorry, I am some text on an internet forum, don't take me too seriously

a reply to: and14263

First of all there is no such things as two mommas
a snake does not give birth to a bird and in the same respect two women can not have a baby.
What the baby has is a mom and a women in her life who acts like a man .
Now i dont agree that tje baby did not get help for gods sake help the baby.
But i do not get into the new age love everyone idea that this baby had two moms no such thing.
Sorry lesbians there had to be a penis in there somewhere

I think the doctor did the appropriate thing--if she didn't feel she could objectively provide services, she should, and did, recuse herself and arrange for care from another provider. Nobody was denied healthcare in this situation and the Dr. acted professionally.

Healthcare is not a vending machine--it is a team effort--and if not everyone is one the same page, then it won't work well together. The Dr. was not comfortable so she arraigned another provider to assume care--that is what one is supposed to do if they are not comfortable with the team.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Why is it that I constantly find myself agreeing with you?

a reply to: mOjOm

I thought doctors have some sort of rule stating they cannot discriminate?

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: and14263

Sorry lesbians there had to be a penis in there somewhere

Really...

IVF, just need the sperm, penis not required!

a reply to: Shepard64

There is unless you're "religious" then your belief in fairy tales supersede the rights of the patients!

I'm more inclined to believe that a ritual chant beside a fiery pentagram caused this decision rather than "prayer"!!!



But that's just me.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Nobody was denied healthcare in this situation and the Dr. acted professionally.

Every "professional" doctor swears this:

“To place the good of the patient at the center of my professional practice and, when the gravity of the situation demands, above my own self interest."

The wording may be different in the various forms of oaths that they take (the original hippocratic oath, the various modern hippocratic oaths, or Pelligrino Precepts), but the meaning is still the same:

Another words, all medical professionals swear to put aside their own personal beliefs/feelings for the betterment of their patients. Their personal situation is not to take precidence over their professional judgement.



The only time a doctor steps aside is when their patient's medical needs surpass their own medical knowledge. In those situations the doctor refers the patient to another medical professional who possesses the necessary medical knowledge to better diagnose/treat the patient.

This doctor was not "professional" in any way, shape, or form according to the oath she swore to.

Period.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: Shepard64

There is unless you're "religious" then your belief in fairy tales supersede the rights of the patients!

What rights? The right to have the specific provider of their choice? Why should the provider be obligated to provide routine care if he or she is not comfortable with it when there is a readily available alternative at no extra cost or travel or inconvenience for the patient? Does one person's rights supersede anothers?

Obviously I don't agree with her discomfort as I don't believe in god or gods or goddesses but I also believe in the autonomy of the individual and, if a provider is not comfortable with the situation, they are ethically obligated to recuse themselves and arrange for another provider to transfer care...which is what she did.

a reply to: and14263

What is a traditional family in America now?

• Nuclear Family – Mother, Father and Children – declined to 23.5% in 2000 from 25.6% in 1990 and 45% in 1960

Seems a lot of American families no longer hold your traditional family views.

a reply to: CranialSponge

“To place the good of the patient at the center of my professional practice and, when the gravity of the situation demands, above my own self interest."



What was the gravity of this situation?

Sounded like a post-natal check up.




Don't agree with the decision, but I don't think this was Life & Death...


More closely related to Eternal Life & Eternal Damnation...