Pediatrician Refuses to treat Lesbians' Child

[Snick1946]

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/28142401/doctor-refuses-treatment-of-same-sex-couples-baby

I have just one comment on this story- even if someone thinks that being gay is a sin- by what twist of logic could anyone refuse to care for a young baby whose parents happen to be gay? Treating this child would in no way compromise this doctor's religious beliefs that I can see. She 'prayed about it'. Pardon me while i throw up.

We are going to see a LOT of this stuff in the months and years ahead. Old thinking dies hard.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Do we know this is the full story?

 

[Snick1946]

Do we know this is the full story?

No we don't and I am open to modification of my take on this doctor if more comes out. There were other stories on this, the first I encountered was on a left leaning web site, I decided to look for something from more mainstream media and found the linked article on a local Fox affiliate. I don't think anyone could accuse them of bias on something like this. She apparently did ensure someone would see them so that's something. I am sure more may be coming.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I just gotta hope someone is not this ridiculous.. KWIM?

 

[Snick1946]

I just gotta hope someone is not this ridiculous.. KWIM?

I know- and to give them a handwritten letter of refusal.

Doctors sometimes are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

 

[MsFacetious]

It sounds like that is the whole story.
I thought maybe there was more to it... like refusing to vaccinate.
But this was at the 6 day visit and they were greeted by another doctor when they walked in.
So... it seems like this is pretty much the entire story.
Wow.

Lucky baby though... I wouldn't have wanted that doctor treating my child anyway. :twocents:

 

[gitana1]

What baffles me is how many people posting on articles believe that this woman has a right to discriminate in this manner. "Freedom of opinion!" "She has a right to say who she treats."

Although Michigan does not specifically include sexual orientation as a protected class, no one was initially ever classified as a protected class under any law until they sued. And laws around the nation have indicated sexual orientation is a protected class - meaning that refusal to serve them due to their status is unlawful discrimination - and so these ladies may have some form of lawsuit against the doctor.

At the least, I hope she loses tons of patients. What kind of doctor punishes an innocent baby for the status of its parents? And does she deny services to the children of parents who conceived them out of wedlock? Adulterers? If not, she's a hypocrite.

Doctors are supposed to care for patients. Not judge their relations. or punish them because they don't like their relations. What on earth does the sexual orientation of this child's parents have to do with the doctor promoting the health of this baby?

This is so illogical.

 

[matou]

What's next? refusing to treat based on race? Take away this doctor's medical licence. SMH

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Refusing to care for a child because of the sexual orientation of the parents is putting personal feelings over a patient. It is morally repugnant for a doctor to ever refuse care of any child, imo. I do hope the parents will file a lawsuit and stand up for their right to seek care for their child.

First do no harm.

 

[Jan]

This seems crazy that the doctor would refuse to treat an innocent baby due to the relationship of the parents. I am a Christian and Jesus said we are not to judge others. What religion is this doctor that thinks judging and punishing an innocent baby is OK?

 

[Trident]

What baffles me is how many people posting on articles believe that this woman has a right to discriminate in this manner. "Freedom of opinion!" "She has a right to say who she treats."

Although Michigan does not specifically include sexual orientation as a protected class, no one was initially ever classified as a protected class under any law until they sued. And laws around the nation have indicated sexual orientation is a protected class - meaning that refusal to serve them due to their status is unlawful discrimination - and so these ladies may have some form of lawsuit against the doctor.

At the least, I hope she loses tons of patients. What kind of doctor punishes an innocent baby for the status of its parents? And does she deny services to the children of parents who conceived them out of wedlock? Adulterers? If not, she's a hypocrite.

Doctors are supposed to care for patients. Not judge their relations. or punish them because they don't like their relations. What on earth does the sexual orientation of this child's parents have to do with the doctor promoting the health of this baby?

This is so illogical.

BBM. What kind of doctor? Probably the same kind of doctor who refuses to treat un-vaccinated kids. They should all be reminded they are supposed to be healers, not judges of anyone's morality or beliefs.

 

[gxm]

I don't agree with what the doctor did, but wasn't it ruled that pharmacists don't have to fill birth control prescriptions if it's against their religion? (IIRC, the caveat being that an alternative must be made available to provide service which is what it sounds like happened here.) This is what happens when our courts allow for discrimination against one segment of the population. It leaves the door open for anyone to be discriminated against as long as the offender can claim religious reasons.

 

[Donjeta]

Well I don't think that puts the good doctor in very flattering light but honestly if I heard that my doctor had to pray and battle with his/her conscience before s/he can decide if it's morally right for him/her to give my baby the best possible care, I'd run really fast in the other direction. The family didn't lose anything. MOO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM. What kind of doctor? Probably the same kind of doctor who refuses to treat un-vaccinated kids. They should all be reminded they are supposed to be healers, not judges of anyone's morality or beliefs.

I think that is different. My opinion on the matter aside when someone is unvaccinated they put other people are risk if they have been exposed. People who may not be able to be vaccinated because of age or healh conditions. So that one, I understand.
Not treating someone because their parent, relative lives differently with them that brings no health risk is something else entirely to me.

I still think there could be more to this story.

Sadly we have seen it before where someone claims something and yet in the end it proves to be not true.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

""After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that i would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationships that I normally do with my patients."

"We do not keep prenatal information once we have our meetings so I had no way to contact you."

She apologizes, saying, "I should have spoken with you directly that day," and "please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice."

Okay. I know this will not be popular however, When I read her letter, She is not judging them, just that her beliefs will make it hard for her to develop the relationship she likes to cultivate with her patients. If we want people to accept everyone, then we have to accept those who may not feel the way others do. She is not mean, or hateful, but she has a right to say what she believes and stand up for that too.
Freedom for all, not just some. And freedom of choice for all not just some.

It may not be popular, but I think that it would have been way worse if she accepted them as a patient and then did not connect with them and she kept treating the child. She stepped out. The child was not refused medical treatment she will just be getting it from a new dr. We all choose our drs and drop them based on how we feel about them, Why shouldn't they be able to do the same? Drs also drop patients for all kinds of reasons.

To me one of the most important things we have in America is freedom of choice. While I may not agree with the dr's choice, I do support her right to make it.

 

[1&2&3]

This article did not say if one of these mothers was the biological mother of the baby, via IVF. Wonder what the doctor feels about other IVF baby patients as they could be the the result of donor egg or donor sperm? Or it is just the fact that two women are the parents of this baby?

This doctor needs to join the modern world. It is amazing that this is the first lesbian couple she has encountered. Or maybe the first couple that spoke out?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This article did not say if one of these mothers was the biological mother of the baby, via IVF. Wonder what the doctor feels about other IVF baby patients as they could be the the result of donor egg or donor sperm? Or it is just the fact that two women are the parents of this baby?

This doctor needs to join the modern world. It is amazing that this is the first lesbian couple she has encountered. Or maybe the first couple that spoke out?

The thing is that she treated them prenataly yes?
"Last September when the expectant mothers first met Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville. She was recommended by their midwife.

"We were really happy with her," Krista said. "The kind of care she offered, we liked her personality, she seemed pretty friendly. She seemed pretty straight up with us.""

She had treated them and took good care of them.
Maybe something else happened between them, Or maybe they made claims about how they wanted to raise the child that did not fit with her doctoring style. Anti vax, or whatever.
I think there could be more to this.

 

[Trident]

It seems, from what I'm reading on this thread, that it is understandable for a doctor to refuse to treat an un-vaccinated child. Am I correct? It also seems that the United States had measles, and many other diseases we now see popping up, TB being one, under control. Seems to me these outbreaks may be the result of allowing un-screened. un-vaccinated immigrants into this country.

Maybe someone can enlighten me to the whys and wherefores of how this works in doctor think. Are doctors now becoming politicians, picking, choosing, and punishing those with whom they don't agree, or who don't dbey what the "medical establishment" says? Are they obliged to treat the illegal, un-vaccinated children? This thing is getting hairy, IMO. And now we have a doctor who can't build a bond/relationship with a certain kind of patient. Interesting.

What did the chicken say to the sick pig? "Hope they don't call a vet who just treats cows."

 

[kline]

There will always be folks who try to indulge bigotry and fear and hatred and all manner of unworthy garbage directed at others behind their personal "Freedom".
I mean who could be against "Freedom" right?'

 

[K_Z]

I guess I'm pretty stunned that this doc sent "that kind" of letter to the couple. Because frankly, there are a lot of maneuvers she could have used to not take them on as patients, without revealing her prejudices to them. For example, she could just announce to her partners that she had decided that she was taking a break from accepting new patients for a few months, and ask one of them to take over with that family, and send out a form letter to all the patients. She chose to make her refusal about that particular couple, and that was her "mistake".

I'm not saying she was "right" to refuse the family, BTW-- just that there are more diplomatic ways to exercise her choice not to care for them. It wasn't an emergency situation, and she did provide an alternate provider for their visit, so from that perspective, I think she is within the law. But the prejudicial implications of the letter is what may get her into a lot of legal trouble, and potentially ethical trouble, with her state BOM.

I work with a married couple who are both OB/ GYNs. They are deeply religious, and do not believe in any form of birth control-- pharmacological, or surgical. They don't do any tubal ligations, and only do hysterectomies and uterine ablations for post menopausal women (unless it's a C-section mishap, and they have had to do a few gravid hysterectomies to save the woman's life). This couple have made it known in the community that they "don't do" birth control prescriptions, or tubals, and will refer patients to other providers if they ask. I was astonished when I first started working with them, because an OB that doesn't do birth control or tubals seemed like a death sentence for a thriving career, and very judgemental and prejudicial. And indeed, in some areas, particularly urban areas, they would never be hired. But in a small town with a lot of conservative religious families, they thrive.

I kind of wonder why this is hitting the news now, when it happened back in October 2014? I wonder if the couple is contemplating a lawsuit?