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: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

A paedophile and a six week old baby with gay parents are not the same in any sense...

There is no emotional trauma involved like in your example of previous molestation...

The only emotional trauma of that doctor is the indoctrination of "beliefs" that a babies gay parents means she is not worthy of her care...




Praying to a God you don't believe in, so theoretically for you, she really just convinced herself that gay people are an immoral afront to humanity and their children by association are not worthy of care!




Or...




Depending on your response after some afterthought!!!




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

An emergency room doctor can't pick and choose any other doctor can and does choose their patients.


(post by sweets777 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

I can't get my head around your thought processes.

I wasn't attacking you by saying 'semantics' I was pointing out that the use of the word 'traditional' meant father and mother.

I know the amount of 'nuclear' families have fallen. That is a fact.

What I am saying is the 'nuclear' family works best from a developmental point of view. I'm not saying anything about which type of family is more prevalent.

It is also clear to see that modern day single parent families are not ideal, they do not work. For different and the same reasons LGB families have issues.

I can't keep repeating myself. It's not getting anywhere near your understanding. Have a good day. I'll start a thread on this soon, no doubt see you in there



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Wrong on every single level. The very first tenet of a physician is "Do no harm".

This "doctor" (I stretch to call them such) should be stripped of their right to practice. I really, really thought the whole "Religious Freedom" thing would never lead to such a situation. Alas, I was proven wrong.

No doctor should refuse to tend to a BABY just because she might have two mommies. Christ. This doctor just passed the child off to an associate and the letter she sent was subtle bigotry at it's finest.

Well, at least I'm not hungry anymore. This crap made me lose my appetite.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

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.

I had this exact thing happen to me when I was at NNMC Bethesda--not only did she not want to be treated by an "infidel" but a "male infidel" to boot--so I got hit with both religious bigotry and sexism. Did I say "tough #, Mr. Diplomat's wife, we don't tolerate bigotry here"--nope, I found a female doctor who was as close as I could get to my qualifications and her specifications as I could and transferred care.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499



An emergency room doctor can't pick and choose any other doctor can and does choose their patients.


In the real world, yes, doctors pick and choose their patients many times.

But they do not announce the reasons why (particularly if it's because of personal ideologies) because they stand the risk of legal repercussions due to the professional oaths they swear to.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

your numbers on american families are way off .....
and i mean way off .
And like it or not even a divorce is still a nuclear family until dad or mom leaves home.
And like it or not science has not figured out a way to have a baby with out both male and female parts.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but can't any patient in their right mind can refuse medical treatment for any reason at all unless they are not conscious and unable to refuse? I'm no doctor so I honestly am not too learned on the subject of patient/doctor stuff.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

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!
edit on 20.2.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc

A paedophile and a six week old baby with gay parents are not the same in any sense...

There is no emotional trauma involved like in your example of previous molestation...

The only emotional trauma of that doctor is the indoctrination of "beliefs" that a babies gay parents means she is not worthy of her care...




Praying to a God you don't believe in, so theoretically for you, she really just convinced herself that gay people are an immoral afront to humanity and their children by association are not worthy of care!




Or...




Depending on your response after some afterthought!!!


What I have said is, that regardless of the reason, if a medical professional does not feel they can provide proper, objective care for a patient, then the ethical thing to do is transfer care to an equally qualified provider.

I'm not so arrogant as to decide for other people how valid or invalid their feelings on a subject is or is not, and I've already said that I don't believe in God, so obviously I do not agree with her reason. However, I do agree with a proper transfer of care if one cannot be objective--THAT is the ethical thing to do.

Just because you don't think another person's reasons are valid does not make them invalid to them and it is the height of hubris to do so.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:18 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.


That's not an answer.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but can't any patient in their right mind can refuse medical treatment for any reason at all unless they are not conscious and unable to refuse? I'm no doctor so I honestly am not too learned on the subject of patient/doctor stuff.


Yes they can, this is autonomy. When someone is in an emergency situation and cannot give consent, say by being unconscious, barring something that indicates otherwise such as a "do not resuscitate" medical alert bracelet, there is "implied consent" in that we recognize that the vast majority of patients would want medical care in an emergency even if they are unconscious.
edit on 20-2-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Go back and re read!



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Since when is it perfectly okay for a doctor to pick and choose their patients based on colour, creed, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc without legal ramifications for doing so ?

Or is this something that's specific only to the United States ?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

i agree it was not life threatining so the doctor handed baby over to another doctor
and didnt want to get involved becuase she knew she was biased
so why not cheer the doctor if i was something and i took my baby to you and you said i cant work on your kid becuase you are somthing i dont agree with but here this doctor will help you i dont see the problem .


But in all reality that doctor should have helped that baby its not the fault of the baby that the mom belongs to the shewomen man haters club



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: flammadraco

your numbers on american families are way off .....
and i mean way off .
And like it or not even a divorce is still a nuclear family until dad or mom leaves home.
And like it or not science has not figured out a way to have a baby with out both male and female parts.


So are "Divorced Parents" now seen as a Traditional Family? I was using the term in response to Andy14263 whereby he stated that a Traditional Family was Mum, Dad and Kids. Did you see that post or just jumping on the bandwagon with your rhetoric?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Awesome! Thanks for the clarification. So basically, a patient can refuse to be seen by a gay doctor, but a doctor cannot refuse treatment to a gay patient, right?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

do what ...lol i got a black friend in london who almost died due to the way the doctors had treated or lack of treatment
and no offense but canada has got a horrible track record on hospital bigotry ...its easy to not be racist or discriminitive
to the minority because canada dont have any



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: NavyDoc

so why not cheer the doctor if i was something and i took my baby to you and you said i cant work on your kid becuase you are somthing i dont agree with but here this doctor will help you i dont see the problem .



And you think in 2015 that this is acceptable? that a trained Doctor is allowed to use her own religious believes on who she can and cannot treat?

Lets put this another way, the baby and her gay moms are in a car crash and the only person at the scene was this doctor, she refuses to treat them as she has strong religious beliefs, would this be acceptable?
edit on 20.2.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join