RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:08 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19532
This is how conservatives treat families.

Pediatrician wouldn't care for baby with 2 moms - Freep.com

Quote:
But as Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn's first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a change of heart. After "much prayer," she decided that she couldn't treat their baby because they are lesbians.

"I was completely dumbfounded," recalled Krista Contreras, the baby's biological mother. "We just looked at each other and said, 'Did we hear that correctly?' .... When we tell people about it, they don't believe us. They say, '(Doctors) can't do that. That's not legal.' And we say, 'Yes it is.'"

The Contrerases of Oak Park are going public with their story to raise awareness about the discrimination that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community continues to face. There is no federal or Michigan law that explicitly prohibits discrimination against LGBT individuals.


It's for their own good, you know.

:problem:

Image

:problem:

So much for being prolife and pro-family. :roll:

dumb bigot

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:45 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8657
Location: miles from nowhere
After much prayer? Wow. So God said don’t care for the baby?

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:00 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11952
The article has a section which discusses the legal aspect of this discrimination. This is discrimination no question about that.

Quote:
Decision not illegal

Krista and Jami Contreras are not suing Roi. They concede that Roi did nothing illegal — which is precisely what they have a problem with: There are few laws on the books that protect the LGBT community from discrimination.

"There's no law that prohibits it," Wayne State University Constitutional Law Professor Robert Sedler said of Roi's actions. "It's the same as a florist refusing to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding."

Currently, 22 states have laws that prohibit doctors from discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. Michigan is not one of these states


This is discrimination. A question is opened, should there be a law?

What comes to my mind is that this may be a case of be careful of what you ask for. In the case of Krista and Jami Contreras their feeling may have been hurt, and readers such as me may have hurt feeling as well.

Should there be a law?

In the interest of the baby, would the baby's needs be enhanced by forcing a doctor treat her when the doctor is not in the correct state of mind to be treating her?


This is ugly, this is messy, but as a parent I would want to face this rather than face what the alternative may have been later. A law might cover over and hide the messy necessary truth.


For the first half of my life I knew a patient could fire a doctor, but the thought never crossed my mind that a doctor could fire a patient.

One night when I was about 30 I hauled a suicidal woman who had taken a whole bottle of pills to the hospital. When I arrive I found out that the emergency room personnel were well acquainted with this women.

They settled her in for a stay and a nurse told me that she would make calls and see if they could find a doctor who would treat her. The person talking to me was rather concerned that she would not be able to find one who would. This woman had apparently burned the bridge with every doctor who would specialize in treating suicidal patients in a small city of 45,000 people, and she had only been living there five or six years.

Then a few years later a doctor fired my dad, he wouldn't do what she told him to do. It feels wrong but I have come to the conclusion that it's the way it is. It might not be wrong. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:31 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36549
Sam, your argument is the same one made over and over. Gee, you're not required to go to a restaurant if you don't want to - so why should a restaurant be required to serve you if it doesn't want to?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:17 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 13529
Location: Sunny South Florida
If you are going to operate as a public accommodation, I think what the last 50 years of civil rights law have tended to indicate is that you don't get to choose what parts of the public you will and won't serve.

Now, not every business operates that way. Some are by appointment only and are not otherwise open to the public. If you operate that type of business, you can say you will only take photos of left handed people named Carl. And that's it. You will only bake cakes for red haired dentists named Fred. Etc. Then you can discriminate as you choose.

It is true that in many cases, at both the state and federal level, sexual orientation is not recognized as a protected class in terms of civil rights protection. So, we need to keep working on that.

"Religious freedom" here is a canard. If you feel your religion tells you you can't attend a gay wedding, then don't. You may be misinterpreting your religion's teachings, but hey, the law does not constrain your personal, private choices. However, how you operate your business is now a matter of public regulation. You don't have to approve of making a cake for gay people, but you don't get to choose that your business won't serve them.

Their rights are more important than your whims.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:25 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36549
Sam, don't you realize that Newman vs. Piggy Park Enterprises Inc. was decided way back in the sixties???


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:12 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19532
The article has a section which discusses the legal aspect of this discrimination. This is discrimination no question about that.



This is discrimination. A question is opened, should there be a law?

What comes to my mind is that this may be a case of be careful of what you ask for. In the case of Krista and Jami Contreras their feeling may have been hurt, and readers such as me may have hurt feeling as well.

Should there be a law?

In the interest of the baby,


:roll:

Quote:
What comes to my mind is that this may be a case of be careful of what you ask for.


We know exactly what we're demanding and don't need paternalistic guidance from the people who will never have to worry about your kids being turned away from medical treatment because of your real or perceived sexuality. This isn't a new concern. We deal with it not just for our kids but I our own medical decisions, whether or not to let on to a potentially homophobic doctor whether or not we're queer.

People in my family have been refused medical treatment on the basis of race.

Yes, there should "be a law".:problem:

It's not about "hurt feelings," and I'm not sure where you think individual feelings enters the picture. This is a law and public policy issue, not a sentimental one.

You are the same as the people telling us in the 90s and 00s to be grateful for second-class treatment. Perhaps you were one.

Or the white moderates telling the Civil Rights Movement "not now," asking things like "but why would you go where you're not wanted," demanding we tolerate irrational second-class citizenship that's not imposed on you, and seemingly not understanding that it's not up for you to decide.

#cantbetrusted

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:49 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 4106
everybody's got a right to live

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:46 pm
Posts: 1633
everybody's got a right to live

Not according to some.

GOP congressman insists parents have ‘religious liberty’ to let kids die from treatable medical conditions

_________________
Socialism! That's that word that your politicians use that it's so nasty. Socialism. Other places just call it sharing. It's a good thing! You just share and give some to the less fortunate. -Fred Eaglesmith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:25 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11952
If you are going to operate as a public accommodation, I think what the last 50 years of civil rights law have tended to indicate is that you don't get to choose what parts of the public you will and won't serve.

Now, not every business operates that way. Some are by appointment only and are not otherwise open to the public. If you operate that type of business, you can say you will only take photos of left handed people named Carl. And that's it. You will only bake cakes for red haired dentists named Fred. Etc. Then you can discriminate as you choose.

It is true that in many cases, at both the state and federal level, sexual orientation is not recognized as a protected class in terms of civil rights protection. So, we need to keep working on that.

"Religious freedom" here is a canard. If you feel your religion tells you you can't attend a gay wedding, then don't. You may be misinterpreting your religion's teachings, but hey, the law does not constrain your personal, private choices. However, how you operate your business is now a matter of public regulation. You don't have to approve of making a cake for gay people, but you don't get to choose that your business won't serve them.

Their rights are more important than your whims.


Thanks X. I was trying to figure out what was different about doctors, something which does not apply to restaurants. Because I agree with GoUnion regarding his restaurants argument, and bakeries.

An emergency room and hospital operate as public accommodations. But regular doctor visits are not operated as public accommodations. However a clinic a doctor may have their practice at is a public accommodation.

So I agree with GoUnion where as public accommodation businesses are concerned. Disagree with him where as none public accommodation businesses are concerned.

Hookers are off the hook, they don't operate as public accommodations. A prostitute can discriminate, an emergency room doctor cannot discriminate, but a regular office visit doctor can. Lawyers can discriminate, but their street entry law firms cannot.

What I did for a living, I was not allowed to discriminate. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:33 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 4106

looks like they got both sides covered either the doctor or the parents using religion to deny a baby or child health care.

there is a law being pondered in Ohio

House Bill 160: the Ohio Fairness Act, a piece of legislation geared toward protecting and expanding the nondiscrimination laws for LGBTQ Ohioans

Quote:
......Kucinich also expressed support for House Bill 160: the Ohio Fairness Act, a piece of legislation geared toward protecting and expanding the nondiscrimination laws for LGBTQ Ohioans, calling it "long overdue." While some cities and municipalities have protections in place (now including South Euclid as of Tuesday), there is no state-wide protection for the LGBTQ community who can be fired or denied opportunities simply for their sexual orientation or gender identity.
......

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19532

So I agree with GoUnion where as public accommodation businesses are concerned. Disagree with him where as none public accommodation businesses are concerned.


MLK had your number decades ago.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:44 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8657
Location: miles from nowhere

So...if said congressman commits adultery and my religious belief (the danger of literal belief) says he must be stoned, I guess he would have no problem with being stoned to death. After all, gotta protect that religious freedom.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:54 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11952

:roll:



We know exactly what we're demanding and don't need paternalistic guidance from the people who will never have to worry about your kids being turned away from medical treatment because of your real or perceived sexuality. This isn't a new concern. We deal with it not just for our kids but I our own medical decisions, whether or not to let on to a potentially homophobic doctor whether or not we're queer.

People in my family have been refused medical treatment on the basis of race.

Yes, there should "be a law".:problem:

It's not about "hurt feelings," and I'm not sure where you think individual feelings enters the picture. This is a law and public policy issue, not a sentimental one.

You are the same as the people telling us in the 90s and 00s to be grateful for second-class treatment. Perhaps you were one.

Or the white moderates telling the Civil Rights Movement "not now," asking things like "but why would you go where you're not wanted," demanding we tolerate irrational second-class citizenship that's not imposed on you, and seemingly not understanding that it's not up for you to decide.

#cantbetrusted


I feel like you're attempting to defeat me in some kind of personal battle by re-framing my argument by misinterpreting and misstating that bit about my position regarding feelings. The parents of that baby suffered hurt feelings, it was not central to my argument.

They didn't even suffer a wasted trip to the clinic. They were met by a doctor when they arrived who was happy to have them as patients. And the clinic did not discriminate against them.

:|

Why would I care if you feel you can't #hashtag trust me? If you state in a public hashtag that I can't be trusted you've let me off of your hook. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:01 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1192
Seems like we have a few issues here.

Lets leave aside why the parents would still want to use that doctor...I wouldn't...but that doesn't justify discrimination. (plus I'm not sure why parents from Oak Park would travel to Roseville for a pediatrician...even given the 'wholistic' approach). I do also have to add, I thought the doctors letter of apology was appropriate. Its not clear from the letter, but it appears that Dr Roi may have even changed her perspective on this.

The article, parents, etc. seem to thing this is entirely legal. Seems to me another argument can be made. Doctors, and hospitals, are not like many other businesses. They are highly regulated and access to the profession is controlled. Not to mention, that in our society health care is (supposed to be) considered a necessity. As such they shouldn't be able to discriminate against certain 'protected classes.' That makes them different from many other businesses, like photographers.

In regard to 'public accommodation,' most businesses are generally not allowed to refuse service based on race, religion, national origin, sexual preference and some other considerations. So, I suppose it is alright to not service left handed, or red haired, people. But you can't make that decision based on skin color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation.....(I wonder whether Irish people might be able to make an argument that discrimination against red hair is national origin discrimination.)

Carmen is correct:
Quote:
...Or the white moderates telling the Civil Rights Movement "not now," asking things like "but why would you go where you're not wanted," demanding we tolerate irrational second-class citizenship that's not imposed on you, and seemingly not understanding that it's not up for you to decide.
But again, as in the Starbucks situation, the case goes beyond legal (though that's important) to how Americans act as a society.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19532

I feel like you're attempting to defeat me in some kind of personal battle by re-framing my argument by misinterpreting and misstating that bit about my position regarding feelings. The parents of that baby suffered hurt feelings, it was not central to my argument.

They didn't even suffer a wasted trip to the clinic. They were met by a doctor when they arrived who was happy to have them as patients. And the clinic did not discriminate against them.

:|

Why would I care if you feel you can't #hashtag trust me? If you state in a public hashtag that I can't be trusted you've let me off of your hook. :D


Dontcha get it yet?

This is not about YOU.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11952

Dontcha get it yet?

This is not about YOU.


That a spurious argument. Do you have anything but ad hominem to add?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19532
Seems like we have a few issues here.

Lets leave aside why the parents would still want to use that doctor...I wouldn't...but that doesn't justify discrimination. (plus I'm not sure why parents from Oak Park would travel to Roseville for a pediatrician...even given the 'wholistic' approach). I do also have to add, I thought the doctors letter of apology was appropriate. Its not clear from the letter, but it appears that Dr Roi may have even changed her perspective on this.

The article, parents, etc. seem to thing this is entirely legal. Seems to me another argument can be made. Doctors, and hospitals, are not like many other businesses. They are highly regulated and access to the profession is controlled. Not to mention, that in our society health care is (supposed to be) considered a necessity. As such they shouldn't be able to discriminate against certain 'protected classes.' That makes them different from many other businesses, like photographers.

In regard to 'public accommodation,' most businesses are generally not allowed to refuse service based on race, religion, national origin, sexual preference and some other considerations. So, I suppose it is alright to not service left handed, or red haired, people. But you can't make that decision based on skin color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation.....(I wonder whether Irish people might be able to make an argument that discrimination against red hair is national origin discrimination.)

Carmen is correct: But again, as in the Starbucks situation, the case goes beyond legal (though that's important) to how Americans act as a society.


One of the reasons it's important to change laws and also expand laws like, say, the Civil Rights Act of 1964,is that these laws and policies govern access to goids and services by citizens.

It's far less a matter of wanting services from particular individuals or institutions. In who knows how many cases,atlertate doctors might not even be available. It's that the Cardenas parents' hetero peers aren't subjected to inequities in services due to their sexual orientation.

What straight person asks then selves, oh this doctor won't see my kid because I'm straight, hey I know! let me get out the Yellow Pages and find them a hetero-friendly doctor! :problem:

The real-life analogy is that my parents' and grandparents, great grandparents, etc's white peers we're not subjugated to either inferior hospitals or no treatment at all.

My father was born in a g. d. sharecropping tent in Arkansas.:problem:

One of the reasons the bigots can't stand Obamacare is Section 1577, which forbids exactly this kind of discrimination. I'm surprised it's even still up on the HHS website

https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-in ... index.html

Quote:
Section 1557 is the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in certain health programs or activities. Section 1557 builds on long-standing and familiar Federal civil rights laws: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Section 1557 extends nondiscrimination protections to individuals participating in:


Etc, etc. Of course what again is missing here is missing from the CR 64, which is express inclusion of SOGI, I. e. sexuality and gender identity.

This Michigan case details why that's still needed. Sam tells me, though, that I and millions of other grown adults don't REALLY know what we're asking for. :roll:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Last edited by carmenjonze on Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:35 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19532

That a spurious argument. Do you have anything but ad hominem to add?


Pay attention to the thread, man.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:53 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11952
Seems like we have a few issues here.

Lets leave aside why the parents would still want to use that doctor...I wouldn't...but that doesn't justify discrimination. (plus I'm not sure why parents from Oak Park would travel to Roseville for a pediatrician...even given the 'wholistic' approach). I do also have to add, I thought the doctors letter of apology was appropriate. Its not clear from the letter, but it appears that Dr Roi may have even changed her perspective on this.

The article, parents, etc. seem to thing this is entirely legal. Seems to me another argument can be made. Doctors, and hospitals, are not like many other businesses. They are highly regulated and access to the profession is controlled. Not to mention, that in our society health care is (supposed to be) considered a necessity. As such they shouldn't be able to discriminate against certain 'protected classes.' That makes them different from many other businesses, like photographers.

In regard to 'public accommodation,' most businesses are generally not allowed to refuse service based on race, religion, national origin, sexual preference and some other considerations. So, I suppose it is alright to not service left handed, or red haired, people. But you can't make that decision based on skin color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation.....(I wonder whether Irish people might be able to make an argument that discrimination against red hair is national origin discrimination.)

Carmen is correct: But again, as in the Starbucks situation, the case goes beyond legal (though that's important) to how Americans act as a society.


Carmen's argument fails when she added "and seemingly not understanding that it's not up for you to decide." This is a political forum I refute that clause in her statement. In this political forum none of us have to power to decide, but we all have a right to our opinions.

With that clause her statement becomes fallacious, it's an expression of a cognitive bias, an argument from authority which is based on the idea that a perceived authority (Carmen) must know better and that a person (me) should conform to her opinion. When it's applied to me or any other person it's an ad hominem attack.

If that statement is removed as an argument it is valid. I don't think it's contradiction of my overall position.

My position on this specific issue is be careful what you ask for. Forcing a doctor to treat a person when they have a discriminatory bias may not be a good idea. Especially if the clinic is not discriminating, and there are other doctors available who do not have that bias available to treat that person.

If a law forces a doctor to treat a person they are uncomfortable with because they have a bias they are very likely to not reveal that bias as this doctor has, and arrange an accommodation for that person.

Why this is important for this case is a doctor is a mandatory reporter of child abuse and neglect. Clearly this doctor is predisposed to feel these parents may abuse that child due to their martial arrangement. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:54 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 2861
Location: Oregon
I don't understand why such a clinic would allow such a doctor to work there. It seems to me, considering the Oath they take, that any doctor who shows indications of being a bigot should not be allowed to practice medicine--period.

Yeah, I get that you might not want to be treated by someone who hates you, or, in the case of a restaurant, being served food by someone who hates you--but that's missing the point. Bigotry like this should not be tolerated--hit them where it hurts...in their pocketbook.

_________________
"In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump." -British poster on Quora Digest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19532

Carmen's argument fails when she added "and seemingly not understanding that it's not up for you to decide." This is a political forum I refute that clause in her statement. In this political forum none of us have to power to decide, but we all have a right to our opinions.


Indeed we do. Your "rights" aren't being trampled because someone disagreed with your opinion on the internet; get real, man.

And no, it's not for you to decide or determine our political priorities, or instruct people who have been doing this work for decades what we must and mustn't want.

As usual on social topics, you're speaking directly out of your unvalidated feelings instead of what the thread is actually about: two women denied equal medical options for their kid that you as a hetero parent will never have to confront or contend with.

Too bad if you don't like me saying so. I would say, after over a decade of having known me: get used to it. Learn to love it. :)

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19532
I don't understand why such a clinic would allow such a doctor to work there. It seems to me, considering the Oath they take, that any doctor who shows indications of being a bigot should not be allowed to practice medicine--period.

Yeah, I get that you might not want to be treated by someone who hates you, or, in the case of a restaurant, being served food by someone who hates you--but that's missing the point. Bigotry like this should not be tolerated--hit them where it hurts...in their pocketbook.


It's missing the point on purpose, in my view, and is designed to put the blame on parents for somehow not magically divining that their doctor is a raging Christinan bigot to begin with.

I would love to see some of these "be careful what you ask for" types tell that to my grandmother who lost twins in childbirth because she did not have access to facilities under mandate to treat all comers. We know exactly what we're "asking" for, which is equal treatment under the law.

Telling LGBTQ families to find another doctor is not a solution, especially in cases where specialized treatment is needed, or for any reason. Heterosexual parents are not told this, and if they are it isn't due to their sexuality or perceived sexuality.

Though it shouldn't be in the age of Donald Trump, it's a wonder that this case even needs to be made. :?

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Last edited by carmenjonze on Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:23 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 13362
The article has a section which discusses the legal aspect of this discrimination. This is discrimination no question about that.



This is discrimination. A question is opened, should there be a law?

What comes to my mind is that this may be a case of be careful of what you ask for. In the case of Krista and Jami Contreras their feeling may have been hurt, and readers such as me may have hurt feeling as well.

Should there be a law?

In the interest of the baby, would the baby's needs be enhanced by forcing a doctor treat her when the doctor is not in the correct state of mind to be treating her?

This is ugly, this is messy, but as a parent I would want to face this rather than face what the alternative may have been later. A law might cover over and hide the messy necessary truth.

The doctor's office accepted them as patients so all the doctors in that office should have treated them and their baby regardless of their personal beliefs. The doctors and the patients are human being and should be treated equally as human beings.

Quote:
For the first half of my life I knew a patient could fire a doctor, but the thought never crossed my mind that a doctor could fire a patient.

Doctors have practices and to have a going practice they need to have X-number of patients. Sometimes the find themselves over-subscribed and they have to either get a partner or scrub some patients from their practice. Usually, a doctor will "fire" a patient that is unruly, abusive, won't follow the doctor's advice, or is using him for getting unnecessary prescriptions. It's not common to fire a patient but it does happen.

Quote:
One night when I was about 30 I hauled a suicidal woman who had taken a whole bottle of pills to the hospital. When I arrive I found out that the emergency room personnel were well acquainted with this women.

They settled her in for a stay and a nurse told me that she would make calls and see if they could find a doctor who would treat her. The person talking to me was rather concerned that she would not be able to find one who would. This woman had apparently burned the bridge with every doctor who would specialize in treating suicidal patients in a small city of 45,000 people, and she had only been living there five or six years.

Then a few years later a doctor fired my dad, he wouldn't do what she told him to do. It feels wrong but I have come to the conclusion that it's the way it is. It might not be wrong. :|

There was a law passed in the 80s that said once a patient enters an emergency room they have to be treated. In your example, someone in the ER would have had to treat her.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pro Life, Pro-family
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 13529
Location: Sunny South Florida
I don't understand why such a clinic would allow such a doctor to work there.


They still take the Hippocratic Oath, right?

OK, I know ob-gyn's skip over the archaic/obsolete part of not doing abortions. :D

But, AFAIK, it doesn't say I will treat patients, unless I don't agree with their sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

Same deal with these pharmacists who will not dispense Plan B. Look, if it's a legal product, and it's carried by your pharmacy, and you don't want to dispense it to patients, find a different career.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group