Doctor refuses to see gay couple baby

Once again trying to introduce political into a thread...

:hmm:
 
Steinhauer said:
Maybe the baby refused to sign up for the ACA.

If the baby was one of those far right conservative families that refused to sign up for the ACA would all you screaming liberals still be screaming at the doctor, or at the parents?

hmmmm .... :roll:

Although I do not agree with the doctor's decision at all, it was her decision to make.
Click to expand...

Any doctor that refuse to care for a baby b/c of the parents being gay should not be a doctor in the first place !
 
Steinhauer said:
Maybe the baby refused to sign up for the ACA.

If the baby was one of those far right conservative families that refused to sign up for the ACA would all you screaming liberals still be screaming at the doctor, or at the parents?

hmmmm .... :roll:

Although I do not agree with the doctor's decision at all, it was her decision to make.
Click to expand...

Well, my health insurance isn't come from ACA.

I don't think lesbian couple gets insurance from ACA if their job including generous benefits.
 
Lau2046 said:
I hate to say it but this goes back to baking a cake. A person has a right to refuse services for an event that goes against their religious beliefs. A doctor has a right to refuse to perform an abortion due to religious beliefs, to excuse themselves from the room when such a thing will take place, etc., It stands to reason that she was within her rights to decline to service the needs of a gay couple. Was it ethical to do? No. She forgot the oath that she swore to uphold "Do no harm." The child really had nothing to do with this and she should have seen the child. Unfortunately, we live under an administration that attacks people of faith which causes some to lose their better judgement, which I agree was true of the doctor's action in this case.


Laura
Click to expand...

understandable but here's a difference.

refusing to use a specific treatment due to one's personal/religious/moral belief is one thing... but refusing to treat a patient solely based on his/her sexual orientation, race, or gender is clearly and completely wrong.

According to the American Medical Association, doctors should not "refuse care based on race, gender or sexual orientation," but they can refuse specific treatments if they are incompatible with "personal, religious or moral beliefs."
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
understandable but here's a difference.

refusing to use a specific treatment due to one's personal/religious/moral belief is one thing... but refusing to treat a patient solely based on his/her sexual orientation, race, or gender is clearly and completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Did the doctor refuse to treat the baby because the baby was gay? The baby's sexual orientation was not the reason - it was the so called "parents" (we don't know where the father was in all this)

I think you overshot this one ...

The doctor, for whatever reason, refused to treat the baby for religious reasons. Think about this one for a moment.

A doctor who refuses to abort a fetus due to religious reasons is often times called an oppressor of the rights of women. Since when did doctors have to perform services that went against their sacred beliefs?

Since when did anyone?
 
Steinhauer said:
Did the doctor refuse to treat the baby because the baby was gay? The baby's sexual orientation was not the reason - it was the so called "parents" (we don't know where the father was in all this)

I think you overshot this one ...

The doctor, for whatever reason, refused to treat the baby for religious reasons. Think about this one for a moment.

A doctor who refuses to abort a fetus due to religious reasons is often times called an oppressor of the rights of women. Since when did doctors have to perform services that went against their sacred beliefs?

Since when did anyone?
Click to expand...

The mothers had to gone to a sperm bank , so Mr. Donor has no say in this.
 
Steinhauer said:
Did the doctor refuse to treat the baby because the baby was gay? The baby's sexual orientation was not the reason - it was the so called "parents" (we don't know where the father was in all this)

I think you overshot this one ...

The doctor, for whatever reason, refused to treat the baby for religious reasons. Think about this one for a moment.

A doctor who refuses to abort a fetus due to religious reasons is often times called an oppressor of the rights of women. Since when did doctors have to perform services that went against their sacred beliefs?

Since when did anyone?
Click to expand...

let's focus, shall we? focus focus focus. *waving hands, flicking light* can you do that? focus focus focus. this is not about an abortion. this is about a doctor refusing to see a patient.

refusing to use a treatment and refusing to treat a patient based on one's religious belief is as clear as black and white. one of them is morally and ethically wrong. refusing to treat a patient is no different from a public bus driver refusing to let a black/jewish/muslim/gay/etc person inside the bus.

so if you do not know what is morally and ethically wrong... then this argument is pointless. when you serve the public, you are expected to serve the public - regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. period. if you have a problem with that - simple.... either don't be in the business of serving the public or go somewhere else closely aligned to your belief.
 
If you say so ... :roll:

I guess this doctor does not have a 1st Amendment right either then.
 
Steinhauer said:
If you say so ... :roll:

I guess this doctor does not have a 1st Amendment right either then.
Click to expand...

1st Amendment has no bearing in this subject as the government is not involved in this nor censoring anyone.

I see that you're confused... I will spell it out with bullet points for you.

1. the government is not prosecuting him for his belief.
2. the doctor is not being under investigation by government for refusing to treat a homosexual parents' baby.
3. his refusal to treat a gay patient is not illegal.
4. the hospital can fire him for refusing to treat a patient based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or disability.
5. AMA can revoke his medical license for being immoral and unethical.
6. to be redundantly clear for you - his 1st Amendment right was never violated and it's not an issue in here.

According to the American Medical Association, doctors should not "refuse care based on race, gender or sexual orientation," but they can refuse specific treatments if they are incompatible with "personal, religious or moral beliefs."
Click to expand...

7. First Amendment is only applicable when it comes to government... not workplaces or private establishments. ie. AllDeaf is not required to respect your first amendment rights. AllDeaf is free to censor you and regulate it however and whatever they want. AllDeaf's ban on religious discussion is not a violation of your first amendment right. your assertion of first amendment right to have a religious discussion in here is a violation of AllDeaf's policy.
 
But the doctor was not refusing care based on the baby's sexual orientation. The baby was the patient .. correct?


(smirking)

I should probably tell you this now ... medical doctors are light years ahead of you ...
 
Steinhauer said:
But the doctor was not refusing care based on the baby's sexual orientation. The baby was the patient .. correct?

(smirking)
Click to expand...

I see that you're trying to weasel your way around like a little sniveling rat and unfortunately... your childish attempt failed.

so yea um..... yea like a baby has already determined and announced her sexual orientation already at her infantile age. a gay baby! yay! :roll:

According to the American Medical Association, doctors should not "refuse care based on race, gender or sexual orientation," but they can refuse specific treatments if they are incompatible with "personal, religious or moral beliefs."
Click to expand...

it does not have to do with specifically a patient's belief. it has to do with doctor's action.

in this case.... the doctor refused to treat the baby because of her parents are lesbians. that is immoral and unethical. refusing to treat a gay patient is exactly same thing. immoral and unethical and unbecoming of doctor... and a violation of AMA's code of conduct and ethic.
 
Jiro said:
1st Amendment has no bearing in this subject as the government is not involved in this nor censoring anyone.

I see that you're confused... I will spell it out with bullet points for you.

1. the government is not prosecuting him for his belief.
2. the doctor is not being under investigation by government for refusing to treat a homosexual parents' baby.
3. his refusal to treat a gay patient is not illegal.
4. the hospital can fire him for refusing to treat a patient based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or disability.
5. AMA can revoke his medical license for being immoral and unethical.
6. to be redundantly clear for you - his 1st Amendment right was never violated and it's not an issue in here.



7. First Amendment is only applicable when it comes to government... not workplaces or private establishments. ie. AllDeaf is not required to respect your first amendment rights. AllDeaf is free to censor you and regulate it however and whatever they want. AllDeaf's ban on religious discussion is not a violation of your first amendment right. your assertion of first amendment right to have a religious discussion in here is a violation of AllDeaf's policy.
Click to expand...

Of course, even, FB could suspend your account for speaking out against LGBT.
 
Here is where the confusion lies. Conveying your religious beliefs does not equate to speaking out against LGBT.

Religion is protected by the 1st Amendment .... period. End of story.
 
Steinhauer said:
Here is where the confusion lies. Conveying your religious beliefs does not equate to speaking out against LGBT.

Religion is protected by the 1st Amendment .... period. End of story.
Click to expand...

Only by government, of course but not private companies.

Private companies are free to fire you for being Christian.
 
Similar concept with 2nd Amendment - the government cannot ban on guns but private companies are free to ban on guns.
 
Steinhauer said:
Here is where the confusion lies. Conveying your religious beliefs does not equate to speaking out against LGBT.

Religion is protected by the 1st Amendment .... period. End of story.
Click to expand...

so are you saying AllDeaf is violating your First Amendment?
 
Back
Top