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: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit

I also believe that the person who initially refused to treat this baby, is a Godless bastard.


Wow, that's a mighty bold judgement coming from a Christian who has no more information on this case than the rest of us. Do you know this doctor personally or are you just condemning her based on this one act?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand how she arrived at a moral objection in this case, but then I haven't heard her explain it either... have you?



That doesn't sound like the ranting of a Godless bastard to me.


edit on 20-2-2015 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I think people on this thread are debating the wrong issue. The question is not "is it right to have gay parents" But rather: "Is is acceptable for a Doctor (Supposedly a highly respected profession) to turn away patients because of their personal beliefs?"

I believe the answer is No. I find it highly unprofessional and this story should be embarrassing for all of those currently involved in the profession. Doctor's are suppose to be some of the most highly educated member's of western society, to turn a baby away because you dont like the baby's family situation is absolutely horrific.

If your personal beliefs mean so much to you, dont take up occupation in a profession that is bound to throw you into the ring with many MANY different types of people, from ALL walks of life.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



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


When it comes to basic human rights discrimination laws, this is the part that boggles my mind:

You would think that basic human rights for all US citizens would be enforced federally, across the board, from sea to shining sea... no exceptions.

Why would something so paramount to the very definition of a free country, be allowed to be decided on at an individual state level ?

You're a free and equal human being in one state, but not in the state right next to it ??




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I wonder what the doctor would do if she found out one of her patients parents was having an affair. Would she refuse to treat the baby? Does she see patients who are born out of wedlock? I wonder if she refuses to see babies whose parents are wearing mixed fibres?

I could add numerous other examples, but we'd probably see that this is just the case of another "Cafeteria Christian" cherry picking biblical text that suits her and ignoring everything else, how very Christian of her!



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
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.



First of all, what you presented was an opinion piece, not case law nor the standards of the board. However, from that piece, you failed to include this portion:



On the other hand, discrimination based on failure to vaccinate would seemingly run up against no statutory prohibition, assuming the patient’s decision to avoid vaccinations was not rooted in religious belief. Similarly, rejecting a patient for his political views, inability to pay, refusal to abide by medical advice, decision to smoke (or play contact sports?), or other characteristics not protected by law would fall completely within the realm of physician discretion. Note, however, that once the doctor-patient relationship has been established, a doctor who would choose to end that relationship must worry not only about anti-discrimination laws, but also his or her obligation not to abandon the patient.


As I pointed out, since the baby had not been seen by this physician, there had not been a Dr/patient relationship established. I mention this concept over and over again, because this is a key concept in such issues--one that most people do not understand. One is not obligated, in any way, shape or form, to a patient that one has not seen or evaluated.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

No. As I posted already...if you have an open to the public practice...you cannot discriminate. Period. And this doctor did have...and did discriminate.

MS
Michigan



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
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.


Right. So you admit that you are bigoted. Would not then, logically, one assume that your reactions to such a case be guided by your bigotry and not logic? Would one logically assume that your reaction is just as bigoted and just as unreasonable as the Dr in question?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:38 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."



Well, since you didn't understand that the AMA has nothing to do with licensing of physicians--such a simple and easily verifiable concept--why do you deign to lecture my friend Annee on what the duties of a physician are? You obviously have no clue.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Annee



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


When it comes to basic human rights discrimination laws, this is the part that boggles my mind:

You would think that basic human rights for all US citizens would be enforced federally, across the board, from sea to shining sea... no exceptions.

Why would something so paramount to the very definition of a free country, be allowed to be decided on at an individual state level ?

You're a free and equal human being in one state, but not in the state right next to it ??



"Moral Majority"

Society evolves slowly. People don't change ideas and beliefs over night.

Forced legal has to slowly creep up on society until majority are supportive. We are pretty much there now. The USSC will probably support marriage equality and include LGBT as a discriminated minority.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
DP
edit on 20-2-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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.


Well said. I like you more and more.

Ethics quite often are a subjective area and they are debated ad nauseaum. One cannot expect someone to do or act in a way one demands so one tries to set guidelines that established a general advice for dealing with complex situations.
edit on 20-2-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Annee



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


When it comes to basic human rights discrimination laws, this is the part that boggles my mind:

You would think that basic human rights for all US citizens would be enforced federally, across the board, from sea to shining sea... no exceptions.

Why would something so paramount to the very definition of a free country, be allowed to be decided on at an individual state level ?

You're a free and equal human being in one state, but not in the state right next to it ??



Because part of a free country is tolerating assholes we disagree with. If being against the norm or being a jerk was illegal, we would not have a free country. Case in point: Westboro Baptist Church--a group of vile and despicable radical homophobes who say awful things. I hate them. I'd guess you hate them. However, we tolerate them because being in a free country where people can say what they want as part of the freedom of expression. It's like having a bulldog in the yard--we tolerate the poops the guard dog does in the yard because the value of having a guard dog outweighs the inconvenience of the poops. I don't want to live in a state where the government punishes me for my viewpoints and, really, neither do you.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

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.


Well said. I like you more and more.

Ethics quite often are a subjective area and they are debated ad nauseaum. One cannot expect someone to do or act in a way one demands so one tries to set guidelines that established a general advice for dealing with complex situations.


Yes. I can think from my logic brain


Sometimes you have to turn off the emotional, personal, self-righteous brain. Not that I want to at times like this.

This woman doctor laid down her personal belief judgement --- and now she is being judged in the public arena.

No different then corps like Chick-fil-A, that got picketed.

I hope she's prepared to: "Reap what she sowed".



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
I think people on this thread are debating the wrong issue. The question is not "is it right to have gay parents" But rather: "Is is acceptable for a Doctor (Supposedly a highly respected profession) to turn away patients because of their personal beliefs?"

I believe the answer is No. I find it highly unprofessional and this story should be embarrassing for all of those currently involved in the profession. Doctor's are suppose to be some of the most highly educated member's of western society, to turn a baby away because you dont like the baby's family situation is absolutely horrific.

If your personal beliefs mean so much to you, dont take up occupation in a profession that is bound to throw you into the ring with many MANY different types of people, from ALL walks of life.


However, the baby wasn't "turned away." They baby was turned over to a provider who was able to perform her care in an objective and non-biased manner.

When confronted with a patient one has personal issues with, one has two ethical options:
1.) Put your personal feelings aside and treat the patient best you can.
2.) Recognize your own failings and pass the patient to a provider who can give the best treatment to the patient.

Doctors are not Gods. They are not special. They have failings and weak points and vulnerabilities like anyone else. It is more ethical to state that one has a problem, admit it, and get the patient the proper care elsewhere than to knuckle under to political correctness and establish care with someone you are uncomfortable with.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

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.


Well said. I like you more and more.

Ethics quite often are a subjective area and they are debated ad nauseaum. One cannot expect someone to do or act in a way one demands so one tries to set guidelines that established a general advice for dealing with complex situations.


Yes. I can think from my logic brain


Sometimes you have to turn off the emotional, personal, self-righteous brain. Not that I want to at times like this.

This woman doctor laid down her personal belief judgement --- and now she is being judged in the public arena.

No different then corps like Chick-fil-A, that got picketed.

I hope she's prepared to: "Reap what she sowed".



Well you are correct. The logical side of you responds correctly.

Certainly the Dr. in question may suffer for her stupid decision. She may be fired by her employer. If she is in private practice she may lose business to the point that she has to fold and start pouring lattes at Starbucks. This would be her own fault and I am perfectly fine with that. What concerns me is to have the state come in and dictate, by power of law, how physicians interact because quite often, physician/patient interaction is a subjective issue and one size fits all laws made by bureaucrats and outraged citizens is not the correct choice.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nope.... My belief is human rights far supercede any religious rights any day of the week. We are all equal and I don't care what anyone believes in, if it gives them comfort. However that's where it stops, no one has any right to impose their religious dogma on anyone. Folk need to treat their relgion as a male phallace. We all know men have one, but does not mean he has to whip it out in front of everyone!



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Thank you for a very thoughtful and reasoned approach to this thread that has had emotions, even mine, running high. I abhor what this doctor did, but you have a very good point that according to current ethics rules, she did nothing wrong.

While I don't entirely agree with those rules, I can see where this could be a personal liberty issue. It's not as if she refused care entirely, she transferred care to another physician, which happens all the time. The key point in this case is that she gave a rather bigoted reason for transfer of care.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nope.... My belief is human rights far supercede any religious rights any day of the week. We are all equal and I don't care what anyone believes in, if it gives them comfort. However that's where it stops, no one has any right to impose their religious dogma on anyone. Folk need to treat their relgion as a male phallace. We all know men have one, but does not mean he has to whip it out in front of everyone!


Right. So if you think that someone else has a belief you don't like, they then have no rights. I would not do that to you, so why would you do that to others? For some people, religious rights ARE human rights, regardless how much you dislike them. I don't have the right to disregard them, you don't have the right to disregard them and, if you enable the state to completely disregard the beliefs of others whom you dislike, you enable the state to disregard the beliefs you hold. Do you honestly want to give the state that much power over what people believe and want?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

Thank you for a very thoughtful and reasoned approach to this thread that has had emotions, even mine, running high. I abhor what this doctor did, but you have a very good point that according to current ethics rules, she did nothing wrong.

While I don't entirely agree with those rules, I can see where this could be a personal liberty issue. It's not as if she refused care entirely, she transferred care to another physician, which happens all the time. The key point in this case is that she gave a rather bigoted reason for transfer of care.


I agree. I dislike her reasons for transferring care. However, she did so in the appropriate manner. The child was seen by a qualified physician and no inconvenience was experienced by her parents. I'd rather have a physician admit her (or his) vulnerabilities and transfer my care to another physician.

As a wise man once said, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." One must recognize their failings, own up to them, and transfer care or representation to someone who can do the right thing. This is, IMHO, the only honorable thing to do.
edit on 20-2-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
We had a similar experience with my grandson, but not for discrimination reasons. Ours was a switch in insurance.

These moms searched for a doctor who followed their holistic beliefs. It seems they actually met with her and discussed their holistic beliefs and felt very strongly that they had found the perfect pediatrician for their baby.

This search to find the "perfect" doctor for your newborn can be very emotionally charged and exhausting. I know.

On the emotional level of new parents ----- it is not so simple as being "assigned" to a doctor your first choice has decided will fit you better.

I feel no sympathy for this doctor choosing her personal faith over caring for this newborn.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join