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: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
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.


A soldier is employed to do a certain thing and can be fired for refusing to obey orders as a consequence. I already said that her employer has every right to fire her if she has one. If she is employed she is hired to provide a service to the satisfaction of the employer and if she cannot do that than the employer has the right to terminate her.

First of all, a physician is neither legally nor ethically obligated to treat anyone at a car crash, but I see where you are getting at.

If you are the only physician available, it is not ethical to transfer care. Part of the ethics of transferring care is having another equally qualified provider in a reasonable distance who can assume care in a timely manner, if none of those conditions are met, you are ethically obligated to continue care until said conditions can be met, then you can ethically transfer care. To do otherwise is known in malpractice law as "patient abandonment."

In this case, there was no patient/Dr relationship--she hadn't even been seen by the physician. Part of "patient abandonment" involves having seen the person--how can you "abandon" someone you have not met? Secondly, as an equally qualified Dr saw the patient at the same appointment time in the same facility, the above mentioned criteria for proper ethical transfer of care were met. Nobody was abandoned and nobody was denied medical care.




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc





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




Who says? You? Why do you get to decide what is moral and reasonable for someone else? The Dr. in question met the legal and ethical requirements for proper transfer of patient care--what difference does it make why she did it? I've transferred care because me and the patient could not agree on the treatment plan (usually involving them wanting more narcotics and me wanting to give no narcotics) or being rude to staff. Not all Dr/patient relationships work out and both the Dr. and the patient have every right to part ways if either party is not happy nor comfortable with the situation. As long as I transfer care in the above described manner, it is both legal and ethical.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think we'll have to agree to disagree as I believe the Doctor had just as much responsibility as a solider would when dealing with their inner belief system. This is not the same as a baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake, this is a doctor refusing to treat a patient due to her ancient and bigoted religious beliefs.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc





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




Who says? You? Why do you get to decide what is moral and reasonable for someone else? The Dr. in question met the legal and ethical requirements for proper transfer of patient care--what difference does it make why she did it? I've transferred care because me and the patient could not agree on the treatment plan (usually involving them wanting more narcotics and me wanting to give no narcotics) or being rude to staff. Not all Dr/patient relationships work out and both the Dr. and the patient have every right to part ways if either party is not happy nor comfortable with the situation. As long as I transfer care in the above described manner, it is both legal and ethical.


And every example you gave there is acceptable to place the patients care to another doctor. Her belief system is not a valid reason to refuse treatment!



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.




See my post above. There are already established ethical and legal requirements for transfer of care.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc





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




Who says? You? Why do you get to decide what is moral and reasonable for someone else? The Dr. in question met the legal and ethical requirements for proper transfer of patient care--what difference does it make why she did it? I've transferred care because me and the patient could not agree on the treatment plan (usually involving them wanting more narcotics and me wanting to give no narcotics) or being rude to staff. Not all Dr/patient relationships work out and both the Dr. and the patient have every right to part ways if either party is not happy nor comfortable with the situation. As long as I transfer care in the above described manner, it is both legal and ethical.


And every example you gave there is acceptable to place the patients care to another doctor. Her belief system is not a valid reason to refuse treatment!


Says you. I'm not going to be so arrogant as decide what is important or valid for another person. She would probably say that your belief system (whatever it is, I haven't the foggiest) was just as irrational and just as bigoted as you say hers is. Certainly you use bigoted language in describing her belief system and one could reasonably point out that your bigotry is just as irrational and immoral as hers--meh.

I don't care what someone's belief system is--as long as they follow the above mention standards of ethical practice and transfer of care, they should have every right to refuse to engage in a professional relationship as anyone else does. Simply having a certain degree does not, nor should not, make you some sort of indentured servant.
edit on 20-2-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
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.


A soldier is employed to do a certain thing and can be fired for refusing to obey orders as a consequence. I already said that her employer has every right to fire her if she has one. If she is employed she is hired to provide a service to the satisfaction of the employer and if she cannot do that than the employer has the right to terminate her.

First of all, a physician is neither legally nor ethically obligated to treat anyone at a car crash, but I see where you are getting at.

If you are the only physician available, it is not ethical to transfer care. Part of the ethics of transferring care is having another equally qualified provider in a reasonable distance who can assume care in a timely manner, if none of those conditions are met, you are ethically obligated to continue care until said conditions can be met, then you can ethically transfer care. To do otherwise is known in malpractice law as "patient abandonment."

In this case, there was no patient/Dr relationship--she hadn't even been seen by the physician. Part of "patient abandonment" involves having seen the person--how can you "abandon" someone you have not met? Secondly, as an equally qualified Dr saw the patient at the same appointment time in the same facility, the above mentioned criteria for proper ethical transfer of care were met. Nobody was abandoned and nobody was denied medical care.


In the UK a doctor would be expected under GMC guidelines to provide treatment at a car crash if safe to do so.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.



The line is at zero.

But for some reason, the AMA is allowing this crap to slip through the cracks.

... or maybe they're not and at some point will start pulling the licences of these so-called medical practioners.

Or maybe they're waiting for someone to drop dead in a medical emergency situation because of some radical religion-first doctor reneging on their sworn duties, before they finally take steps to enforce laws already set in place to prevent this sort of stuff from happening.

It seems apathy is the new religion these days.

"Doctor doesn't want to treat you because you don't fit into their personal belief system ? Meh, just find a new doctor."

Instead of:

"Doctor doesn't want to treat you because you don't fit into their personal belief system ? Why the hell is this doctor allowed to operate a public medical practice ?!"




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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!)



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.


Gonna need to agree with you


While I am not supportive of this doctors reason for discrimination, I can see the logic rather then emotional response to it.

Now she will be judged as she judged others.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc





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




Who says? You? Why do you get to decide what is moral and reasonable for someone else? The Dr. in question met the legal and ethical requirements for proper transfer of patient care--what difference does it make why she did it? I've transferred care because me and the patient could not agree on the treatment plan (usually involving them wanting more narcotics and me wanting to give no narcotics) or being rude to staff. Not all Dr/patient relationships work out and both the Dr. and the patient have every right to part ways if either party is not happy nor comfortable with the situation. As long as I transfer care in the above described manner, it is both legal and ethical.


The examples you gave seem to involve patient/doctor disagreements. Would it not be different in this case? The patient is a baby. The doctor refusing care is based on praying to God because of the patients parents sexuality. Is this taught in medical school?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.



The line is at zero.

But for some reason, the AMA is allowing this crap to slip through the cracks.

... or maybe they're not and at some point will start pulling the licences of these so-called medical practioners.

Or maybe they're waiting for someone to drop dead in a medical emergency situation because of some radical religion-first doctor reneging on their sworn duties, before they finally take steps to enforce laws already set in place to prevent this sort of stuff from happening.

It seems apathy is the new religion these days.

"Doctor doesn't want to treat you because you don't fit into their personal belief system ? Meh, just find a new doctor."

Instead of:

"Doctor doesn't want to treat you because you don't fit into their personal belief system ? Why the hell is this doctor allowed to operate a public medical practice ?!"



The AMA does not license practitioners. They are neither involved with granting nor pulling licenses.

The legal and ethical rules are already well established and "someone to drop dead in a medical emergency situation because of some radical religion-first doctor reneging on their sworn duties," is already covered by both the medical boards and state laws and is already illegal and actionable. As I clearly stated above, there are specific criteria already established in the permitting in the refusal of engaging in a Dr/patient relationship and the transfer of care and your scenario about dropping dead in an emergency because of refusal to care is already well established and actionable both from a civil and criminal standpoint.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Why, you ask...



Because what you said was a proclomation and not within the basis of the reality...


Tell me how it is "thought crime" if denying care is an action?
Not the same...

That's why!

Or are you suggesting that at the time of initiation and the Oath they have yet to deny anyone, thus making it a thought crime?

I concede that...


But, I would say, your "why" does sound more argumentative than an actual standpoint in morality...
Especially when considering it is impossible to deny how seriously immoral such bigotry is!


& your example does sound ethical...
In every sense of the word.


The OP scenario does not!



Alas, we may as well part ways here, we are unlikely to agree...
However I have learned much from this conversation...
Thank you NavyDoc!



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc
Personally I do think having a certain degree/profession does put certain responsibilities on a person. Appreciate this may come partly from living in a country where education is still largely state funded.
If your house was on fire would you consider it ok for the fire brigade to check your race/religion/sexuality before assisting?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc





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




Who says? You? Why do you get to decide what is moral and reasonable for someone else? The Dr. in question met the legal and ethical requirements for proper transfer of patient care--what difference does it make why she did it? I've transferred care because me and the patient could not agree on the treatment plan (usually involving them wanting more narcotics and me wanting to give no narcotics) or being rude to staff. Not all Dr/patient relationships work out and both the Dr. and the patient have every right to part ways if either party is not happy nor comfortable with the situation. As long as I transfer care in the above described manner, it is both legal and ethical.


The examples you gave seem to involve patient/doctor disagreements. Would it not be different in this case? The patient is a baby. The doctor refusing care is based on praying to God because of the patients parents sexuality. Is this taught in medical school?


People are focused on the whole religious aspect. You can ethically and legally transfer care if you simply don't like the patient, or his politics, or that he does not wear underwear--it does not matter as long as it is done by the criteria I outlined above. Does anyone want to work with a physician that does not like you on a personal level? Would it not be better to have that physician find you a better match for your personality or beliefs or hang ups or whatever, than to continue on a relationship that they feel interferes with their objectivity?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
Personally I do think having a certain degree/profession does put certain responsibilities on a person. Appreciate this may come partly from living in a country where education is still largely state funded.
If your house was on fire would you consider it ok for the fire brigade to check your race/religion/sexuality before assisting?



The fire brigade is employed by the state to provide a service. If they cannot provide such service, they can and will be fired. I already said that this Dr's employer, if she has one, has every right to fire her.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Alright, let's set aside the Hippocratic Oath for a minute (because apparently it means diddly squat) and just look at what laws are in place with regards to doctor-patient relationship legalities:



Existing case law conveys the well-established default rule that initiation of the doctor-patient relationship is voluntary for both parties. But there is a catch – physicians are only free to refuse to accept a prospective patient if their reason for doing so is not prohibited by contract (e.g., with their employer or an insurance company) or by law.

And there are several laws at the state and federal level that prohibit certain types of discrimination in the context of offering public accommodations – including discrimination against patients. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits physicians and hospitals receiving federal funding, including Medicare and Medicaid (so read: nearly everyone), from discriminating against patients on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Some states have expanded on this to cover medical personnel and health care facilities beyond the funding “hook” and to include additional protected categories. At the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, for example, a number of states prohibited licensees from categorically refusing to treat infected patients when the licensee possessed the skill and expertise necessary to treat the condition presented. Some states also have laws and licensing requirements applicable to the medical context that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, or medical condition.


Harvard Law

So looking a little further, apparently Michigan does not have any sexual orientation discrimination laws set in place with regards to doctor-patient relationships... so it looks like medical practioners are free to discriminate on that particular subject all they want. They cannot legally discriminate if you're black, or green, or Jewish, or Taoist... but if you kiss the same sex, you're S.O.L.

I guess that explains why this doctor was more than happy to send a letter to the parents fully explaining her religiosity against homosexuality with no fear of legal ramification.

So if you live in Michigan, don't be gay... or stay in the closet and pretend your same sex companion coming to the doctor's office with you is just your best pal who's there for moral support.




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

My bigotry is towards all relgions. Look at what relgion has done to the World, it has held humanity back by thousands of years, and if relgious folk had their own way we'd still be living in the dark ages. Damn right I'm a bigot towards folk who believe the word of shepherds over scientist.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Doctors are not required to take any oath. Many, probably most, consider it old fashion and out dated.



. . . Michigan, doctors can refuse to treat a gay person, or their children, citing religious freedoms.

However, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics have taken a strong stance against this practice and have prohibited it in their ethics rules, which are only advisory.

"Respecting the diversity of patients is a fundamental value of the medical profession and reflected in long-standing AMA ethical policy opposing any refusal to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination," the AMA said in a statement, adding the AMA encourages "diversity, awareness and cultural sensitivity in the medical profession."


www.usatoday.com...
edit on 20-2-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

LOL

The AMA Ethical Code:

"We encourage you not to discriminate. But you know... do whatever your little heart desires. In fact, we no longer even require you to take an oath of ethics because it's just so yesterday."




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Annee

LOL

The AMA Ethical Code:

"We encourage you not to discriminate. But you know... do whatever your little heart desires. In fact, we no longer even require you to take an oath of ethics because it's just so yesterday."



Yep. Apparently, ethics can be suggested, but not forced. You're on your own.

There are 22 states where this kind of discrimination is illegal.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join