Newborn Baby Almost Refused Treatment Because She Has Two Moms

a reply to: NavyDoc

Because her bigoted religious views were superseded by the patients human rights!

Not sure if you are a "Navy Doctor" but I bet you would have been court marshalled if you even dreamed of doing the same whilst working in the Navy (assuming you did!)

a reply to: CranialSponge

You must have missed the "when the gravity of the situation demands" part. This wasn't an emergency situation.

a reply to: flammadraco

If you look back in history the two parent thing is quite a new thing.
Many cultures have had different ways of bringing up kids.
Personally as long as there is love coming from the parent figures I don't think it matters two men three women two men and an alien I care not.
The doctor is way out of order and should be struck off.
Imagine the fuss if it was a muslim doctor refusing anyone because of his religion.
But to some they don't mind because they want people to discriminate against gay folk.

a reply to: flammadraco

Semantics.

I'm sure you know I mean a male father and female mother.

a reply to: Bone75

What part of

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.

aren't you understanding ?

Perhaps you need to read through each and every one of the various types of oaths these doctors take to get a better understanding of the contextual meaning they're swearing to ?

Allow me to aid you in your research:

There is the original Hippocratic Oath (some medical schools still use this one), there are numerous modern-day Hippocratic Oaths (some medical schools use one of those), and then there is Pellegrino's Precepts (some medical schools use that one instead).

In each and every one of those, somewhere in there the doctor-to-be swears to put their patient over and above their own personal ideologies - the exact wording in each of those is a moot point - the context of what it is they are swearing to is what matters.

Your circular semantics don't count.

a reply to: and14263

Yep, and the figures given were for a "Male Father" and a "Female Mother"

Semantics..... is that the best you have? I showed you what percentage of American Families were now Nuclear (your idea of a traditional family) which had fallen to less than a quarter of the families in the states and you call it semantics, I call it your views are outdated and its time to join the rest of society in 2015!

a reply to: flammadraco

If the doctor would have refused to treat the baby in an emergency situation, I might agree with you, but, she didn't. She arranged for another doctor to treat the baby. I have no problem with that. For a long time I've stayed out of the gay rights bit, because I really didn't care. It was none of my business. I had no problem with it. Now I'm getting sick and tired of having it shoved down my throat. You state "religions bigotry", where's your outrage over ISIS tossing homosexuals off building roofs?

Doctor decides to not treat a small baby - not because they're incapable of doing so, not because the parents cannot afford to pay the doctor but because that doctor does not agree with the fact that there is no male in this picture.

So, the doctors personal beliefs have influenced their decision to not take this baby on - doesn't matter how you cut it, THAT is discrimination. Against a week old baby as well. Can you get any lower??

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: flammadraco

If the doctor would have refused to treat the baby in an emergency situation, I might agree with you, but, she didn't. She arranged for another doctor to treat the baby. I have no problem with that. For a long time I've stayed out of the gay rights bit, because I really didn't care. It was none of my business. I had no problem with it. Now I'm getting sick and tired of having it shoved down my throat. You state "religions bigotry", where's your outrage over ISIS tossing homosexuals off building roofs?

I didn't realise that doctors were allowed to pick and choose their patients, when did that come into effect?

originally posted by: CranialSponge
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.

The part in bold is not true. That is not the only time a doctor recuses himself. For example, in most states, it is actually illegal for a physician to treat his or her own family members, even if they are the best in their specialty, because the obvious lack of objectivity. I won't treat a close friend or family member (emergency situations aside) for that very reason--same with people I have business relationships with or I don't feel I can be objective with. I have a colleague who referred a patient to me because he had a 35 year old past imprisonment for child molestation and, although it was 35 years ago, she as a mom and former molestation victim herself, was not comfortable with him and could not ensure objectivity in his care so she did the ethical thing--send him to someone else before starting the Dr./patient relationship.

I find it amusing when non-physicians try to lecture physicians about medical ethics or what they think the Hippocratic oath is or means.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Ditto, totally concur with your points! Here in the UK the "Extended Family" was more popular than the Nuclear family but now with the cost of housing, its very hard for relations to live in the same town and thus the Nuclear family model is the most common.

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!

a reply to: and14263

In order of your comments:

I didn't "assume" anything about you. Kindly notice, I phrased as a question.

Hmmm. I suppose you could reduce my statement to "my opinion" but if you care to look at modern psychology, Freud et. al., are considered foundational, but hardly relevant based on current understanding. However, I happen to be a particular fan of some of C. Jung's material, so, I cede the point.

I didn't intend to chastise as that is not my place. When we are passionate about issues, it's easy to become diffuse. But, as it is, you are welcome!

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Because her bigoted religious views were superseded by the patients human rights!

Not sure if you are a "Navy Doctor" but I bet you would have been court marshalled if you even dreamed of doing the same whilst working in the Navy (assuming you did!)

I am a physician and no I would not be "courts martialed" (might as well get it right if you are going to use it, it is courts martial as in a military court) as one is expected by regulation to recuse oneself if one cannot provide objective coverage.

No "human rights" were violated. No one was denied care. No one was left without a physician. No one was denied treatment.

One's right to care does not obligate someone else to serve you. If a physician feels they cannot objectively care for you, regardless the reason, they are ethically and morally bound to find you the same quality of care with someone else and recuse themselves. No sane person wants a doc who does not get along with them treating them--such medical relationships never work well.

a reply to: flammadraco

hello sperm comes from the penis lol ....i guess they did not teach that in lesbian sex ed.............lol
Yup you need a penis its like trying to get milk with out the cow ...

a reply to: flammadraco

With all due respect...

Quick question...


You say there are 10m single parents...

& 3m LGBT parents...

And only 25% of parents are a "traditional couple"...


There is no other "type" of parent to add to this equation...
So let's begin...


3/3 of 13m is 3 times 4.33m...

Meaning 4.33m parents are a traditional couple...

Add that extra 25% (4.33m) to the 13m you get 18m parents altogether, going by your statistics...




The quick question...

How can a nation of over 300 million people only have 18m parents?

Thanks in advance.

a reply to: sweets777

and how messed up do the kids raised by that community have it i can only imagine how hard that is on the kids.
But who cares about the kids as long as the gays get what they want.
But there has never been in the history of man the idea that two people of the same sex can raise a child.
Not the Greeks the romans ...i dont care if your christian or pagan both pagan and christians know it takes male and female
to raise a child i wonder who is gonna tell all the gay people that .

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: flammadraco
You state "religions bigotry", where's your outrage over ISIS tossing homosexuals off building roofs?

Sorry am I in the wrong thread, I never realised this was about ISIS, bloody ISIS taking over ATS. I thought we were discussing a baby with gay parents being refused treatment by some numpty using religious scripture written my man who believed the sun was magic and the Earth was flat and using that same fairytale scripture in 2015 as an excuse to be a bigot!

Bad Me!

Doctor's offices/practices are considered "public accommodation" under the laws in most areas.

What if a doctor decided that they don't like the elderly, or a certain religion, or a certain ethnicity?

Such laws are in place for a reason.

On the other hand, I have a goodly respect for individual preference as well as well as the power of the marketplace.

I think the community can make their own decisions about the doctor's character and whether they want to patronize her services.

So, a little of Column A and Column B ...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

because they are full of crap the traditional family is the dominate roll in america
even if you parents are divorced there are still both parties involved

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Nooooooo

You also have Step Families, Extended Families children living with their relations, Foster Children, Adopted Children etc. No such thing as a traditional family unit in this day and age.