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.

 

Court: Doctors can't withhold care to gays based on religious beliefs

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Court: Doctors can't withhold care to gays based on religious beliefs


rawstory.com

California’s high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

The ruling was unanimous, a contrast to the state Supreme Court’s 4-3 schism in May legalizing gay marriage.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.”
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
The question is, which takes precedence, the Hippocratic oath or personal belief.

In this case, personal belief seems to have been set aside - otherwise where would the line be drawn?

Refusing to treat someone based on their religious creed or lack of it?

Would they only want to treat christians?

Would they refuse to treat muslims on the spurious grounds that they could be viewed as religious enemies?

I have nothing against a persons beliefs, but when it starts to intrude into something as vital as the medical profession, sometimes a line has to be drawn.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Doctors are there to diagnose and take care of people,not make personal evaluations about what they do in the bedroom,if they cant grasp that they shouldnt be doctors in the first place.Its about caring and helping people not judging them.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I think it's sad that this even had to be decided by a court. If a person is so ignorant and narrow-minded as to even consider denying or with-holding medical treatment due to sexual persuasion, they should not be allowed to practice medicine.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I can't believe I'm even reading this post in this day and age. Does this mean that doctors have been withholding care to people based on discriminations against them? Thats outrageous. If so, then I'm glad this court ruling has brought this up.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The Hippocratic Oath comes first - in my opinion. Doctors are supposed to help, treat, and diagnose PEOPLE. They SHOULD not discriminate based on Color, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Religion...etc.. Check the Personal crap at the door - it has no business in Medicine.

Otherwise, why are they Doctors?

- Carrot



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CA_Orot
The Hippocratic Oath comes first - in my opinion. Doctors are supposed to help, treat, and diagnose PEOPLE. They SHOULD not discriminate based on Color, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Religion...etc.. Check the Personal crap at the door - it has no business in Medicine.

Otherwise, why are they Doctors?

- Carrot


Generally speaking, they are in it for the money.

But Doctors are also people, complete with all the bias and prejudices that go along with that. The Oath was created long ago by someone wise enough to see that anyone wanting to be a healer must accept and recognize that healing is a non-judgmental all encompassing act, devoid of the doctor's sentiment towards the sick or injured.

However, doctors are now simply in the business of bio-mechanical repair and service, and wish to be so far removed from the patient as to consider themselves in a position to judge the person, instead of the body.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Somewhere out there is a Mormon Proctologist contemplating suicide right now.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Just so that I'm clear here, these guys are christians - in other words, followers of christ, or jesus.

I've never been able to find a passage in the New Testament where jesus condemns homosexuals (or lesbians) so how exactly is this against their religious belief anyway?

IMO it's more about someones interpretation of the NT than it is about what was actually said (and yes, I know the arguments for and against the bible)

The same thing happens in pretty much every religion - someone takes a small part of a passage, out of context, and uses it to promote their own agenda.

There's also the question of parenthood, and whether people would consider a gay relationship to be a suitable environment for a child - personally, I think that if the child is brought up in a loving, stable environment then it matters not a jot.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Considering that Jesus himself didn't seem to have any qualms about healing a Roman soldier's boyfriend (Matthew8:5-13 & Luke 7:1-1), I think these doctors are unintentionally hilarious.

I'm an agnostic, but Jesus was a real person and his philosophy was way ahead of his time IMO. He was way ahead of this time, 2000 years later


Part of me wishes I was a believer, just so I could hope to see these guys' faces when they go to heaven and Jesus gives them the lowdown



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Somewhere out there is a Mormon Proctologist contemplating suicide right now.


So what is that remark supposed to mean? First, I don't even understand the apparent "joke" - if there is one. Second, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand. Third, how does that obvious slam at other ATS members not violate the T&C?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
To the poster above me, what slam? He made a joke.

Anyway, my opinion on this matter is doctors should be able to treat who they want to treat, and deny who they want to deny. Sure, its wrong to deny someone treatment because of sexual orientation, but if a doctor doesn't want to accept someone into their practice that is their decision. If I was a doctor and the courts forced me to accept someone as a patient, I would be pretty pissed. Also, as the patient, if I had to go to a doctor that was forced to treat me, I would be very worried about sub-par treatment and lack of care. Instead, they should go to doctors that readily accept them instead of forcing a doctor to treat someone.

Instead of denying them based on sexual orientation, they should have just denied them on some other less politically incorrect grounds. Much like how a business will pass over a minority, but instead of saying that was the reason they merely state that they are currently not accepting applications.

If a doctor doesn't want to accept someone as a patient, then they shouldn't have to. This of course only pertains to family doctors and such, not surgeons and the likes, which they are constantly working in life and death situations. A surgeon deciding to not treat a patient may very will kill them, whereas a doctor would just make them have to find a more understanding and cooperative doctor.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Wo wo wo hold the ship were not talking about medical care were talking about ardifical insemination This is a elective procedure. I dont beleve that a doctor should be forced to preform one if he doesn't want to.Why didnt the lesbian go to another doctor. I can tell you why It the gay agenda to try and force people to accept there life style. They talk about free speach and how ther opressed till some on disagres with them then the play the o well you are a biggot crap. Ya Usa



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CA_Orot
The Hippocratic Oath comes first - in my opinion. Doctors are supposed to help, treat, and diagnose PEOPLE. They SHOULD not discriminate based on Color, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Religion...etc.. Check the Personal crap at the door - it has no business in Medicine.

Otherwise, why are they Doctors?

- Carrot


To be fair to these doctors, they were not refusing to care for someone who was bleeding and dying or anything like that. Artificial Insemination is an ELECTIVE procedure. Does a doctor not have the right to say no to an elective procedure? If your doctor doesn't want to perform an elective procedure for you why not just go to a different doctor? It seems to me that this whole lawsuit was probably a set up.

The judges that make up the California Supreme Court are drunk with their own power and seem to believe that they have the right or obligation to legislate morality. Sure they can punish doctors that choose to stick to their beliefs but what good does it do? Are the doctors going to change their beliefs? I doubt it. They will just stop being doctors or move somewhere less oppresive. So California loses more doctors and pharmisists only to complain about all of the doctors from other countries. Doesn't seem to be all that smart to me - - - -



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
I can't believe I'm even reading this post in this day and age. Does this mean that doctors have been withholding care to people based on discriminations against them?


Yes they have been.And still are.And even after this still will.
Its a people thing.
Some good people become doctors, some not so good people become doctors.
Same with almost everything in life.
The result you get weighs heavily on the person themselves.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Generally speaking, they are in it for the money.


Agreed Max, agreed. There are some doctors that are in it for the money...but I also think there are some out there who are doctors because they can make a difference. Few and Far Between, but I believe, true.


But Doctors are also people, complete with all the bias and prejudices that go along with that.


Totally agreed, but in the position held by a Doctor I believe that neither prejudice or discrimination have any place in medicine... When it comes down to it - everyone has the right to be treated, and I think they should have the professionalism, not to let their beliefs interfere. It is no ones business what is done in the bedroom - and it isn't the physicians place to judge. The physician is to treat - not play God.

Again. Just my opinion.

- Carrot



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
If you argue that people should be able to choose to be homosexual or bisexual, or whatever they want, then you should agree that doctors are people too and should have the ability to act accordingly.

The couple in question wasn't dying, no physical problem at all, yet they are trying to push their own beliefs on others... very arrogant. Most of you are making it sound like the doctors are just allowing them to die.

This ruling is just forcing free will away from doctors, and making them do things that they think are foolish.

It is EXTREMELY selfish to support personal rights that only coinside with your views, and ignore rights that go against your beliefs.

Basically, this is violating freedom of religion. The couple can find other willing doctors, or go and adopt or something, but you people are hell bent on making christians do things that go against their views.

You would let inmates in jail get illegal drugs because they need them for their "religion", yet you won't let a doctor exercise free will?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I think we've got some brainwashed gun jumpers in this thread. Since when did refusal to artificially inseminate someone constitute "refusal of care & medical treatment of illness?" These doctors never refused to care for and treat those with actual illnesses... they merely refused to artificially inseminate someone who they didn't believe should be a parent. HUGE difference. You're trying to compare a non-essential elective procedure, much the same as an elective cosmetic surgery, to essential medical care?

I wonder, if it was a doctor who refused to perform the procedure for a heterosexual woman who already had a dozen kids on the grounds that she had plenty of children, or if they had refused to perform a breast enlargement on a stripper because she wanted beach ball sized breasts that would be unsightly in the doctor's opinion if people would be so quick to cite the hypocratic oath against said doctor. Stop and think for a moment, whether or not it agrees with your PC viewpoint of the world, maybe the doctor believed that homosexuals shouldn't raise children. There is some research to back up the idea that children that grow up in same sex parented households do have issues (just as I'm sure there is research that says the oposite.) If that's the case, then the doctor is violating the hypocratic oath by performing the procedure, as he would believe that he's "doing harm" to any children born thanks to his actions.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by CA_Orot
The Hippocratic Oath comes first - in my opinion. Doctors are supposed to help, treat, and diagnose PEOPLE. They SHOULD not discriminate based on Color, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Religion...etc.. Check the Personal crap at the door - it has no business in Medicine.

Otherwise, why are they Doctors?

- Carrot


Generally speaking, they are in it for the money.

But Doctors are also people, complete with all the bias and prejudices that go along with that. The Oath was created long ago by someone wise enough to see that anyone wanting to be a healer must accept and recognize that healing is a non-judgmental all encompassing act, devoid of the doctor's sentiment towards the sick or injured.

However, doctors are now simply in the business of bio-mechanical repair and service, and wish to be so far removed from the patient as to consider themselves in a position to judge the person, instead of the body.


Yes, it was created to help the sick and injured, let me point out that these two are neither sick, nor injured. The opposite, perhaps, because they are trying to have children.

BTW, the doctors in question are not removed at all, they are actually very personal, otherwise they would have just gone along with the procedure.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Somewhere out there is a Mormon Proctologist contemplating suicide right now.


LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy cow.. you made me laugh so hard i cried.


If a Doctor refuses care based on if someone is gay or not he/she should be fired on the spot. People like that should not be allowed to be doctors.


Originally posted by itguysrule
So what is that remark supposed to mean? First, I don't even understand the apparent "joke" - if there is one. Second, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand. Third, how does that obvious slam at other ATS members not violate the T&C?


Don't blame others for your own ignorance itguysrule.. The Joke was well placed and not directed at anyone here at ats. Time to grow up and leave ignorance behind.

Do a google search for Proctologist if you still can't figure out the joke

[edit on 18-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join