medical care refusal on grounds of personal morals

[meridannight]

pediatrician refuses to care for a baby of lesbian mothers


i don't understand this.

Doctors can refuse specific treatments if they are incompatible with personal, religious or moral beliefs.

i don't think that means that a doctor can refuse to treat/help a patient they have a moral problem with. i think it means they have the right to refuse if the treatment or procedures involved go against their morals (like some of the more controversial treatments). although it still doesn't sound so right.

since when do ''personal morals'' get a free pass to endanger another person's health and allow you to stop doing your job? if you have a problem with treating people then you shouldn't have become a doctor. if you passed med school you should have enough brain cells to understand that some of your patients are gonna be people you don't like. so don't become a doctor if that bothers you. refusing treatment is morally wrong too, you know.

and in this specific case, the patient didn't have a sexual orientation. she'll probably end up turning out straight. the parents weren't the patients.

how does this make sense in the US? i've never heard anything like it. i thought doctors were supposed to be obliged to treat people indiscriminately. i know issues with competency/methods/etc are sometimes adequate with doctors. but this? how is this even possible? or legal for that matter? i am completely confused right now.

next thing you know doctors will be refusing to treat people based on religion/non-religion, race, or the kind of character they have. everything can be labeled under the vague term of ''personal ethics''. shouldn't this be illegal?

[ShiftyNJ]

So much of what goes on in the US makes no sense. It starts with the idiots we elect to office. A person who has never sent an email is on the Senate Committee on Technology. We have congressmen who think a woman could swallow a camera and this would facilitate an examination of her reproductive system.

This flies in the faith of the hippocratic oath and the person should be barred from practicing medicine. There is nothing to debate.

[LJay]

It is principally a ploy used by those who wish to thwart universal health care. "Let's find something that will block it." is the idea. These people do not seem to have heard about a certain Samaritan...

[meridannight]

well, if we throw universal health care out the window we might as well throw the rest of the disciplines out as well. did that not cross their mind? doctors don't own a monopoly on this. pilots can refuse to fly people they don't like, university professors can flunk students they don't like...this is what it comes down to essentially.

if we started discriminating on personal bias on professions that cater to the public at large, then we're back in stone age tribal mentality. except we don't live in tribes anymore. we live in large cities with millions of inhabitants, most anonymous to us, most who we don't like. we live like this, because it has more benefits than drawbacks to our life. putting up with occasional contact with people we don't like is something we all do. and we get the same in return. it cancels itself out. otherwise we'd all still be in small gangs and fighting tribal wars over small pieces of land.

doctors don't function in a power vacuum. nobody does. we're all individuals, but in the 21st century nobody is 100% self-sufficient (unless you're the type that opts out of the society and its cumulative benefits entirely). you don't build your own car or your house, you don't fly your plane, you don't grow the food that you eat every day. you get those things because society indiscriminately distributes these goods/services to you. and you're the same link in this chain as everybody else. if you think you can discriminate on personal bias then you should be cut out of the chain, or opt out of it.

this type of ignorance and behavior grinds on my nerves. it's hypocritical and illiterate.

[Rareboy]

It can't happen in Canada.

[meridannight]

It can't happen in Canada.

yeah, neither can it happen in the EU. this is how it's shocking to me. doctors on this side of the Atlantic have their opinions too, but those opinions go out the window when they do their damn job. it wouldn't even cross their mind to kick the patient to the curb because they disagree on some ''moral'' issue.

i don't understand how US can be so backwards on some things.

[Hardheaded1]

It shouldn't happen, but anyone who believes doctors don't discriminate, be they in the AMA or any other professional organization, hasn't been paying attention. And it isn't in any way restricted to sexual orientation.

They situate themselves in exclusive buildings, price their services out of reach of working class people, and refuse to accept Medicaid or Medicare patients. When I lived in Alaska, there were quite a few doctors who refused Medicare. A retired person better be pretty well off to stay in the state as a senior.

Like a restaurant, a doctor in private practice may refuse to serve anyone. Many states have laws about providing emergency care, but this plainly wasn't that.

The doctor, like the infamous cake bakery, can so far legally discriminate. As gay rights increase, this will become illegal. For now, it isn't and the couple isn't being deprived of a service, only being refused by a single provider, one who is enough of an exception to be newsworthy. That's pretty good progress considering homosexuals were chemically neutered within the last 60 or 70 years, and in the UK, mind you.

[MikeW]

…. refusing treatment is morally wrong too, you know.

and in this specific case, the patient didn't have a sexual orientation. she'll probably end up turning out straight. the parents weren't the patients. ...

[meridannight]

this is not the same thing as refusing treatment on grounds of the patient not being able to pay and the two are incomparable conditions. some medical bills are through the roof, but i can understand that. doctors need to get paid as well. MRIs cost money, medical technology costs money. surgery needs extensive training before a doctor can practice it. and it's ridiculous to start giving all that out for free for the public. this is nothing to complain about. it's the same with other specialist professions. unless you want to go through medical training yourself, or e.g. get licensed to fly a plane and afford one yourself.

this was denying medical care on grounds of sexual orientation. completely different thing. it's like refusing medical treatment because your patient doesn't like the same flavor of ice cream as you do.

[Albie]

Don't give them that idea. They might start putting favorite ice cream flavor on the forms they make you fill out.