Doctor denies service to child because parent has tatoos

[southcitymom]

Wonder if the doctor would have acted differently had she had tattoos of a cross or Jesus or bible verses....?

 

[MREG2]

Yep, me too. Unless I strip - no one would guess. I don't have the stereotypical "look" of a person who would ever have one. Of course I don't just have one... they're addictive!

Unfortunately they are addictive!! Hopefully I'll be going this summer to get some updates....

 

[Jessiebell]

Why would the doctor treat one child who's mother has a tat, but not this child? Are we missing a part of the story?

What does christianity have to do with chewing gum?

I would be willing to wager that the woman that was refused had MORE tattoos - that it wasn't simply the fact that she had them but that she had a lot of them and piercings. He'll more than likely pretend he didn't see the above mentioned tattoos probably because she has two or three.

He's a jerk. To refuse help to a child because of your own prejudices is disgusting in my book. If he were even 1/2 human he'd have simply warned her, but treated this child.

 

[Marthatex]

Here's a modern version of the Hyppocratic Oath:



Emphasis added.

But there are other versions and translations. Perhaps the good doctor considers the entire oath a pagan relic, since it predates Christ.

It seems to me that since he is holding up a "creed" (his own personal brand of Chrisitianity), that he is going against the Hippocratic Oath.

I don't like tatoos either, but he's a doctor, not a "preacher". My husband sees all patients except those that are rude or uncooperative towards him, or want drugs; then he "fires" them as a patient. A tatoo would certainly not be a problem to him, unless it were infected.

 

[pedinurse]

it makes NO sense to me that he would actually examine the child and diagnosis the ear infection and then refuse to treat her because of mom's tatoos. There's more to the story here.

 

[Maral]

it makes NO sense to me that he would actually examine the child and diagnosis the ear infection and then refuse to treat her because of mom's tatoos. There's more to the story here.

My impression was that they were turned away even before any examination.

I'm not sure there is any more to the story because, according to the link, "the doctor said that he was just following his beliefs, creating a Christian atmosphere for his patients."

I asked my husband, who is a physician, what his thoughts were on this. He said that any doctor who is in private practice has a right to refuse patients, but this guy needs to learn what being a Christian is all about before using that as an excuse.

 

[Details]

it makes NO sense to me that he would actually examine the child and diagnosis the ear infection and then refuse to treat her because of mom's tatoos. There's more to the story here.

It doesn't sound like he did examine the child - I'd figure the ear infection was obvious to the mother as well, or diagnosed the next day by a decent doctor.

 

[IrishMist]

Ear infections can cause so much pain! I know it's not life threatening, but it seems to me he could have prescribed the child some antibiotics, then sent them on their way. When I was younger, an ear infection got so bad that it ruptured my ear drum! Talk about painful.

I don't think he should have been allowed to turn the child away.

 

[MREG2]

My impression was that they were turned away even before any examination.

I'm not sure there is any more to the story because, according to the link, "the doctor said that he was just following his beliefs, creating a Christian atmosphere for his patients."

I asked my husband, who is a physician, what his thoughts were on this. He said that any doctor who is in private practice has a right to refuse patients, but this guy needs to learn what being a Christian is all about before using that as an excuse.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Right on....

 

[txsvicki]

I'd be willing to bet that the dr. didn't tell the patient a thing, but some snooty office manager, probably with jewelry and pierced ears, did the talking on behalf of the cowardly doctor. Actually, I've heard it said that the medical symbol with the snake originates from a pagan symbol. It's a wonder he even became a dr. if he's so concerned with symbols and markings. It's a good thing that all businesses, churches and hospitals don't operate this way. If his patient load changes or different people move into the area he chooses to live, the dr. will change his tune and follow the money. I'd like to know what "the host of other requirements" are that is mentioned in the article.

 

[reb]

would he rather the mother NOT bring her child in to be treated? what if he were the only doc in town, would he still refuse them? sounds to me like she's just trying to be a responsbile mother.

on the other hand, if you have a practice, i suppose you might have a right to choose your patients.. not sure what the law is on this though...? i have never heard of a doctor refusing someone based on something like this, though.

but i agree.. it doesn't sound like we're hearing the whole story. journalists these days LOVE to jump on 'discrimination' stories without showing the whole picture or telling all sides... because it gets people riled up (sympathy for the supposed 'victim') and sells papers.

 

[Spazkat9696]

Ear infections can cause so much pain! I know it's not life threatening, but it seems to me he could have prescribed the child some antibiotics, then sent them on their way. When I was younger, an ear infection got so bad that it ruptured my ear drum! Talk about painful.

I don't think he should have been allowed to turn the child away.

Today pain or not he probably would have not given a Rx anyway. The AAP now recommends pain control and no antibiotics for ear infections due to the fact most are not caused by bacteria but a virus which they have a vaccine for. My son has had 2 really bad ear infections we went to the doc got the diagonsis and were told to give med to control pain and fever and come back in a week to see if it had cleared up and it always did, if it was still present then they treat it. Point being no matter what the mom says we wern't at the office, we don't know what happened, maybe he just did not want to write the rx because of the guidelines, but even if he flat out just walked away the child still was not harmed as harsh as that sounds a good doc should not have given the RX idue to the guidelines put out by the AAP. Also the over perscription of antibiotics leads to drug resistance, killer bugs that we were able to kill 5 years ago could end up killing if we are not careful.