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: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: sweets777

Gay couples adopting? well they do tend to be very good parents.
My Uncles adopted two troubled kids both from abusive familys and I tip my hat off to them, they have had the two terrors for over 8 years or so and they both are going to uni and love their Dads to bits.
I would adopt If I could




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

I guess if i dont think gay couples should have children then im homophobic well then i guess im a homophob.lol
Its just not right to subject those kids to that kind of life when 9 times out of ten its not even the one partners child its adopted
or something so its not even there blood



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Exactly as I suspected the case to be... Compassion and a "righteous want or need" to help people.

So do you not think that bigots who may one day choose to appease their "uncomfortable" feelings rather than a sick patient, should have no place in the Medical field?

& should cases like this set a precedent in a movement towards restricting such people from becoming a Nurse/Doctor/Surgeon/etc?



Because the status quo could be a slippery slope imo.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

What is she supposed to think we all came from monkeys lol ....................monkeys



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: flammadraco

no black and white couples are fine becuase they can make a baby gay couples no you cant make a baby .
two male parts dont make a baby and two famle parts dont make a baby just incase you were wondering ..............
oh yea and hun i am mixed mom was asain and black dad was white just to burst your balloon there.
God people are ate up he dont agree with me he must be a racist i know where he is coming from you are full of crap lol


You know what i'll bite!

You are Homophobic for your comments, you also managed to ostracise straight couples who can not have babies naturally.

You keep talking about what you learned at school but IMHO go back to school and learn some more. Your spelling is atrocious as is your grammar and you expect me to believe you made an educated opinion,from what I have seen you write here today, you have a lot to learn but id start with the basics.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: flammadraco

I guess if i dont think gay couples should have children then im homophobic well then i guess im a homophob.lol
Its just not right to subject those kids to that kind of life when 9 times out of ten its not even the one partners child its adopted
or something so its not even there blood


I withdraw my previous question.

Best,



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Being looked at today in Michigan here that if you are a business open to the public...this doctor can't discriminate, based on color, race, creed, age or sexual orientation.

She may still face something....



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

I dont expect or care what you think or believe i thought you said you were not responding to me anymore ......gosh



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Here is what I think...



If someone joins the medical field...

Care of the patient should be the sole focus and nothing else...



& if there is a chance of bigotry...
It should be stated before they take the Oath so they can be denied the chance of being people's last line of defence.


Where is the line drawn for this "uncomfortable" feeling...

At situations like the OP...

Or can one go further on "ethical grounds" and say that they're "uncomfortable" treating anyone they are bigoted towards no matter the circumstance?



imo, I think a lot of people here can safely say this is Devil worship...

Not Christ like.


So you would bar someone from a profession just because you don't like their opinions on things? What other professions would you deny people as the thought police?

I don't believe in the devil, either.
edit on 20-2-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: flammadraco

I dont expect or care what you think or believe i thought you said you were not responding to me anymore ......gosh


I don't expect or care what you think or believe I thought you said you were not responding to me any more



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: sweets777

And if yall dont think homosexuality is right or -moral well u just be part of dat dem der unedumacated crowd



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't care what her beliefs were, she could belief in Unicorns and Fairies for all I care, but the minute she allowed her personal religious beliefs to affect the way she treats patients, then she should be struck off. What amazes me is as a doctor she needs to have a good brain, how then has she allowed scripture written by men who believed the Earth as Flat from 2000 years ago to affect her judgement?


So you want to ban people for beliefs? What other feelings and beliefs do you think should be a dis qualifier for a profession in your wisdom?

She did what she was supposed to do--refer the patient to another, equally qualified provider in the same practice. The postnatal visit was not delayed one iota and she never established a Dr/patient relationship in the first place. There was no denial of care here because care was provided. There was no patient abandonment here because there was not relationship in the first place and another provider was found.

The doctor may be fired by her employer, and that's fine. She may go out of business as word gets around, and that's fine too. However, do we really want the state to strike people from the rolls just because we dislike their feelings on certain subjects? Use the coercive power of the state to punish people we don't like? That's just another form of bigotry, IMHO.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

Look we just dont agree leave it at that



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
There was no delay in treatment. There was no loss of care.


My left man marble sir.

The fact of the matter is, that if someone is looking to get their child treated, and a doctors sensibilities mean that the first doctor they come to, does not want to know, then by necessity there will be a delay in care! What absolute rot!



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc

Exactly as I suspected the case to be... Compassion and a "righteous want or need" to help people.

So do you not think that bigots who may one day choose to appease their "uncomfortable" feelings rather than a sick patient, should have no place in the Medical field?

& should cases like this set a precedent in a movement towards restricting such people from becoming a Nurse/Doctor/Surgeon/etc?



Because the status quo could be a slippery slope imo.


And the state mandating certain thoughts and feelings and validating ones and disregarding others is not a slippery slope?

Certainly I think that such feelings have no place in medicine and such things are getting more and more rarer which is why, when they do happen, it makes national news.

Her employer has every right to fire her--she is employed to provide a service.
If she is in private practice, she very well may go out of business if nobody wants to go to her, and that is perfectly fine too.

I draw the line at state mandated thought police though.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit

originally posted by: NavyDoc
There was no delay in treatment. There was no loss of care.


My left man marble sir.

The fact of the matter is, that if someone is looking to get their child treated, and a doctors sensibilities mean that the first doctor they come to, does not want to know, then by necessity there will be a delay in care! What absolute rot!


They had the exact same appointment time at the exact same date in the exact same facility--just with a different provider than previously expected. How was any sort of evaluation and treatment delayed?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

im 6 ft 5 im blonde right handed i have read and studied almost every religion not like alot but you know like a little bit of everything lol. im 35 yrs old and im in the middle of usa ohio cincinnati



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


So you want to ban people for beliefs? What other feelings and beliefs do you think should be a dis qualifier for a profession in your wisdom?


Nope, never said that but when their beliefs affect their work then yes! for example would you think it acceptable for a solider to refuse to follow orders due to their belief system?


The doctor may be fired by her employer, and that's fine. She may go out of business as word gets around, and that's fine too. However, do we really want the state to strike people from the rolls just because we dislike their feelings on certain subjects? Use the coercive power of the state to punish people we don't like? That's just another form of bigotry, IMHO.


Its nothing about hurt feelings, and had you answered my previous point to you which was.....


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?


I'd understand where you are coming from.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Can't think of any equivalents off the top of my head.



Morality and patient care far supersede your proclomation of the thought police...


Especially since when someone denies care to someone for whatever uncomfortable reason, it is no longer a thought but a discriminatory action!!!



& the chasm between the two dwarfs the largest seperation point of The Grand Canyon, good sir.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc
Yes in this case there was no delay or risk. However lets say the change meant a five minute delay in the waiting room, that's not much so still ok right? Or what if it meant going a different facility half an hour away? That's not really so much compared to protecting religious freedom is it? What about a days delay or a week?
At some point you have to draw a line and when it comes to medical care being affected by bigotry I would like the line to be at zero.







 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join