Pediatrician Refuses to treat Lesbians' Child

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I had a primary care physician tell me on my first visit that he didn't do anything reproductive due to his religious beliefs, that I would need to see an obgyn for the annual tests. Yawn. Ok. I didn't get bent out of shape about it. This is much ado about nothing. Although, she should have just said 'not accepting new patients' and left it at that.

It's not quite the same thing, but I'll throw it out there for discussion purposes... I know a lot of women who won't go to a male obgyn. I wonder how they would feel if they found out their female obgyn was lesbian. With personal services, we all want the freedom to choose a provider that we are comfortable with, and to reject a provider that we may not be comfortable with, for whatever reason. Shouldn't the provider have that same freedom? Certainly, quality of care may suffer otherwise.

Please note I specified personal services. I think this is very different from a pharmacist.

Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk

 

[stormshine]

The biggest thing she did wrong to this couple was agreeing to be their doctor even after they told her they were lesbians. This wasn't like the doctor who tells potential patients up-front that he doesn't provide reproductive services. They researched her. They met with her and decided they liked her. They probably went through steps with their insurance company. She agreed to be their baby's doctor, they were relying on that, and then she changed her mind. The hadn't met this other doctor.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I had a primary care physician tell me on my first visit that he didn't do anything reproductive due to his religious beliefs, that I would need to see an obgyn for the annual tests. Yawn. Ok. I didn't get bent out of shape about it. This is much ado about nothing. Although, she should have just said 'not accepting new patients' and left it at that.

It's not quite the same thing, but I'll throw it out there for discussion purposes... I know a lot of women who won't go to a male obgyn. I wonder how they would feel if they found out their female obgyn was lesbian. With personal services, we all want the freedom to choose a provider that we are comfortable with, and to reject a provider that we may not be comfortable with, for whatever reason. Shouldn't the provider have that same freedom? Certainly, quality of care may suffer otherwise.

Please note I specified personal services. I think this is very different from a pharmacist.

Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk

I agree. I think that people have the right to choose who they want to be in contact with and who they don't. They have a right to have opinions about how other people live and what they think is okay and not. We do it every day. I think it is ridiculous when people let their children run wild in the neighborhood and no one is ever watching them, But that is their choice to make with their children.
I don't think it is any different with any other way people live. We all have to decide for us what works and what doesn't.
What if she just didn't like them? What if she knew that she just could not be in contact with them and give them the same care?

My problem is when people use their faith as a shield to keep others out, but other than that I think people have a right to interact with who they want to.

 

[gitana1]

I had a primary care physician tell me on my first visit that he didn't do anything reproductive due to his religious beliefs, that I would need to see an obgyn for the annual tests. Yawn. Ok. I didn't get bent out of shape about it. This is much ado about nothing. Although, she should have just said 'not accepting new patients' and left it at that.

It's not quite the same thing, but I'll throw it out there for discussion purposes... I know a lot of women who won't go to a male obgyn. I wonder how they would feel if they found out their female obgyn was lesbian. With personal services, we all want the freedom to choose a provider that we are comfortable with, and to reject a provider that we may not be comfortable with, for whatever reason. Shouldn't the provider have that same freedom? Certainly, quality of care may suffer otherwise.

Please note I specified personal services. I think this is very different from a pharmacist.

Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk

Well do you think hospitals and doctors should have the right to refuse treatment to black people because they're black? Is it okay for a doctor to say, "I'm not comfortable treating black people. I've prayed about it, but I can't."

How about women? Can a Muslim doctor state he refuses to have female patients due to his religion?

Because both of those things are specifically illegal federally and per the AMA code of ethics: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x220.htm

 

[Montjoy]

I agree. I think that people have the right to choose who they want to be in contact with and who they don't. They have a right to have opinions about how other people live and what they think is okay and not.

rsbm

That's all well and good, but we're not talking about private individuals interacting in their private lives. We're talking about professionals -- members of professional organizations who, by virtue of training that the work they do, are provided powers and protections that private individuals are not (e.g., I'm not a MD, so I can't prescribe medication). Professionals have obligations and ethical codes to respect. The problem is more pronounced when you consider people who are public servants, such as in the case of doctors who, for instance, take any state, local, or federal funding as members of, let's say, a state hospital. In their capacities as doctors, they do not entertain the same rights as freedoms as in their capacities as private citizens.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Well do you think hospitals and doctors should have the right to refuse treatment to black people because they're black? Is it okay for a doctor to say, "I'm not comfortable treating black people. I've prayed about it, but I can't."

How about women? Can a Muslim doctor state he refuses to have female patients due to his religion?

Because both of those things are specifically illegal federally and per the AMA code of ethics: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x220.htm

No one belongs to the AMA any more. (Just to bring up that point).

 

[Nova]

...My problem is when people use their faith as a shield to keep others out, but other than that I think people have a right to interact with who they want to.

I agree with you, Scarlett, and have throughout this thread. (I'm thinking we might want to erect a monument to the occasion or something. LOL.)

I would only qualify your remarks as follows: if the lesbian mothers lived in an area where opinions were so rigid they were unable to get care for their child, then I think the law should insure their child be treated. But this is not the case, since the objecting pediatrician was able to find them a referral.

But there was a day when NO doctor would have seen them for fear of offending other patients. That would be a different matter.

***

Confidential to K_Z: you never need to duck around me, and I am as openly gay as they come. (That sentence doesn't sound right, does it?) I very much appreciate your views on everything from science to medical ethics.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Getting back to the AMA: only something like 30% of doctors currently practicing belong to the AMA (completely irrelevant organization)-- so she "violates" their code of ethics.... Oooohhh, so now they can kick her out of their organization to which she likely doesn't belong.

So that's a wash.

(Can you tell its a pet peeve of mine when people bring up the AMA like it means something?)

 

[gitana1]

No one belongs to the AMA any more. (Just to bring up that point).

Getting back to the AMA: only something like 30% of doctors currently practicing belong to the AMA (completely irrelevant organization)-- so she "violates" their code of ethics.... Oooohhh, so now they can kick her out of their organization to which she likely doesn't belong.

So that's a wash.

(Can you tell its a pet peeve of mine when people bring up the AMA like it means something?)

Hey! I'm not sure why my mention of the AMA bothers you so much! I'm not a member of the American Bar Association either. I don't know any lawyer that is. But the ABA sets guidelines that most state ethical boards follow. Its ethical rules are also a barometer of the trends in law. So it remains very relevant even if not specifically controlling.

So let's see if the AMA has influenced Michigan state ethical laws:

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 368 of 1978

333.20201 Policy describing rights and responsibilities of patients or residents; adoption; posting and distribution; contents; additional requirements; discharging, harassing, retaliating, or discriminating against patient exercising protected right; exercise of rights by patient's representative; informing patient or resident of policy; designation of person to exercise rights and responsibilities; additional patients' rights; definitions.Sec. 20201.

(1) A health facility or agency that provides services directly to patients or residents and is licensed under this article shall adopt a policy describing the rights and responsibilities of patients or residents admitted to the health facility or agency. Except for a licensed health maintenance organization, which shall comply with chapter 35 of the insurance code of 1956, 1956 PA 218, MCL 500.3501 to 500.3580, the policy shall be posted at a public place in the health facility or agency and shall be provided to each member of the health facility or agency staff. Patients or residents shall be treated in accordance with the policy.

(2) The policy describing the rights and responsibilities of patients or residents required under subsection (1) shall include, as a minimum, all of the following:

(a) A patient or resident shall not be denied appropriate care on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual preference, or source of payment.


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jc....aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-333-20201

Yup. It sure does. And it appears that it may be the patients' right not to be refused treatment on the basis of sexual preference, in MI!

Of course in this case, it is the baby that was denied treatment and she has no sexual preference to speak of. But my point is that discrimination based on something that has to do with a protected class, is illegal. And narrow areas in which laws have allowed discrimination have to do with treatments that prevent or end life (cessation of life support, for example, reproductive procedures), or circumstances that may cause grave risk to others (un-vaccinated patients).

I'm afraid of lesbians so I won't treat their innocent baby appears to be plain, illegal discrimination, that does not fit within any constitutionally allowable exception.

 

[K_Z]

I don't want to go too far off topic, but I want to share another perspective about business in society, because health care is a business.

In my area, there are a number of ordinary businesses with a strongly religious message that have proliferated recently. As an example, the only place in town to get automotive work done, is at a car dealership that erected a Las Vegas-style HUGE lighted animated billboard sign on the main road, that blares bible verses, and things like images of a bloody Jesus, in between the time and temperature. (Some neighbors laughingly call them the Evangelical Church of Chevrolet.) They have religious quotes and verses on every bill and document, and I heard they are now leaving Bibles and literature in cars that have work done there. As this is the only place in town to have automotive work done, and customers don't have much choice when their car is having trouble, doesn't it seem wrong to "force" their particular religious beliefs on customers who only want some work done, or an oil change, without the proselytizing?

If it were a church with that huge animated billboard sign, it would be merely annoying. But coming from a needed business that has nothing to do with religion (car services), and no other options, that seems to be an abuse of free speech, IMO. How much choice does a customer in need really have to avoid their proselytizing? And what would happen if an openly gay couple walked in and needed services? Would they get an oil change, and a lecture on their lifestyle? Or would they be told there weren't any open appointments?

 

[gitana1]

I don't want to go too far off topic, but I want to share another perspective about business in society, because health care is a business.

In my area, there are a number of ordinary businesses with a strongly religious message that have proliferated recently. As an example, the only place in town to get automotive work done, is at a car dealership that erected a Las Vegas-style HUGE lighted animated billboard sign on the main road, that blares bible verses, and things like images of a bloody Jesus, in between the time and temperature. (Some neighbors laughingly call them the Evangelical Church of Chevrolet.) They have religious quotes and verses on every bill and document, and I heard they are now leaving Bibles and literature in cars that have work done there. As this is the only place in town to have automotive work done, and customers don't have much choice when their car is having trouble, doesn't it seem wrong to "force" their particular religious beliefs on customers who only want some work done, or an oil change, without the proselytizing?

If it were a church with that huge animated billboard sign, it would be merely annoying. But coming from a needed business that has nothing to do with religion (car services), and no other options, that seems to be an abuse of free speech, IMO. How much choice does a customer in need really have to avoid their proselytizing? And what would happen if an openly gay couple walked in and needed services? Would they get an oil change, and a lecture on their lifestyle? Or would they be told there weren't any open appointments?

Since they aren't a public entity and as long as they don't discriminate against anyone who may believe differently, then no, I don't think it's wrong at all. They have a right, regardless if the fact that they have a monopoly, to express their religious views.

This is what makes us Americans. And I will staunchly protect and fight for their right to be as obnoxiously in-your-face religious as they want.

I am 100% anti censorship. Censorship is very dangerous. It is the tool of fascists, totalitarians, dictators,terror groups like ISIS. I am going to fight for the rights of others to express their ideas regardless as to whether I agree and especially when I don't. Because the moment we let freedom be taken from others, it can be taken from us.

The united states is a unique and vibrant nation precisely because we have such a free change of ideas and thought. Other nations have emulated that mindset because it is such an important one.

I don't think it's wrong at all. It is freedom. And it's quirky. And so uniquely American!

 

[MyBelle]

I don't want to go too far off topic, but I want to share another perspective about business in society, because health care is a business.

In my area, there are a number of ordinary businesses with a strongly religious message that have proliferated recently. As an example, the only place in town to get automotive work done, is at a car dealership that erected a Las Vegas-style HUGE lighted animated billboard sign on the main road, that blares bible verses, and things like images of a bloody Jesus, in between the time and temperature. (Some neighbors laughingly call them the Evangelical Church of Chevrolet.) They have religious quotes and verses on every bill and document, and I heard they are now leaving Bibles and literature in cars that have work done there. As this is the only place in town to have automotive work done, and customers don't have much choice when their car is having trouble, doesn't it seem wrong to "force" their particular religious beliefs on customers who only want some work done, or an oil change, without the proselytizing?

If it were a church with that huge animated billboard sign, it would be merely annoying. But coming from a needed business that has nothing to do with religion (car services), and no other options, that seems to be an abuse of free speech, IMO. How much choice does a customer in need really have to avoid their proselytizing? And what would happen if an openly gay couple walked in and needed services? Would they get an oil change, and a lecture on their lifestyle? Or would they be told there weren't any open appointments?

I think gay couples are so used to discrimination, they know how to cope.
If residents are laughing about it, they must not be all that concerned about it. Quite a few states still do not have laws that force businesses to do do business with everyone irregardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

 

[wendybtn]

Doctors refuse to treat patients in their office every day for far more strange reasons than this. Usually it is just known as 'firing a patient.' It goes on a lot. And the doctor, as far as I know, does not have to give a reason. If she said this, she may not be too socially savvy, but I am not sure who would oversee this. Personally I would not want to see a physician who did not want to see me or mine.

 

[SStarr33]

I have been a Pediatrician for 34 years and have cared for children in both lesbian and gay household--doesn't affect my ability to care for the child and the family unit...Seems to me this action is in direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath which we all promised to abide by on graduation from Medical school. IMHO I find this behavior disgusting !!!!!!

No offense, but doctors violate the H Oath all the time, not to mention that just because something does not affect you, does not mean that it does not affect someone else.

I think people should be able to do business with who they want to do business with. And I could care less if that means that black people won't serve white people or white people won't serve black people etc or that Muslims won't serve Christians and so on.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Since they aren't a public entity and as long as they don't discriminate against anyone who may believe differently, then no, I don't think it's wrong at all. They have a right, regardless if the fact that they have a monopoly, to express their religious views.

This is what makes us Americans. And I will staunchly protect and fight for their right to be as obnoxiously in-your-face religious as they want.

I am 100% anti censorship. Censorship is very dangerous. It is the tool of fascists, totalitarians, dictators,terror groups like ISIS. I am going to fight for the rights of others to express their ideas regardless as to whether I agree and especially when I don't. Because the moment we let freedom be taken from others, it can be taken from us.

The united states is a unique and vibrant nation precisely because we have such a free change of ideas and thought. Other nations have emulated that mindset because it is such an important one.

I don't think it's wrong at all. It is freedom. And it's quirky. And so uniquely American!

Curious if you notice a difference in doctors in private practice as opposed to doctors who work for a university clinic or say a teaching hospital, etc, in who they can take on as patients?

I was thinking about this today-- would a doc in private practice be more like, say, a private school?

 

[MyBelle]

Curious if you notice a difference in doctors in private practice as opposed to doctors who work for a university clinic or say a teaching hospital, etc, in who they can take on as patients?

I was thinking about this today-- would a doc in private practice be more like, say, a private school?

The docs that I know who work for university clinics and teaching hospitals also have their own practice. They allow medical students to rotate through not because they need the money but because they feel it is essential both for learning and delivery of quality patient care. My friend and pediatrician always said, "the more eyes, the better." He died much too soon.

JMO

 

[K_Z]

Curious if you notice a difference in doctors in private practice as opposed to doctors who work for a university clinic or say a teaching hospital, etc, in who they can take on as patients?

I was thinking about this today-- would a doc in private practice be more like, say, a private school?

BBM.

This may explain a bit more. Health professionals often form their own professional corporations, such as "Smith and Jones, P.A." Or "Happy Family Medicine Clinic, LLC". Many other health professionals (besides docs) also form these types of professional corporations, and often contract with hospitals in this capacity (my husband and I own an anesthesia staffing and consulting business.) Within your own corporation, you have different rules than when in a contracted position. Many surgeons, for example, have their own clinic "Pretty Good Orthopedic Surgeons, P.A.", but are contractors when performing surgery in a hospital. In large hospital systems, physicians may be employees in both their hospital and clinic functions. Some roles, such as ER docs and ICU intensivists, are employees in some facilities, and independent contractors in others, or contracted as part of a professional corporation.

So the answer to your question would be, is a health professional functioning in their capacity as an independent contractor, or as an employee, if they set limits on their practice? An employer has the right to direct the work product, work hours, work conditions, etc of their employee. The employee agrees to that, or seeks employment elsewhere. By definition, an independent contractor directs their own "work product", and has more control and flexibility in what they agree to, based on the circumstances of the contract. An independent contractor can be "let go" much more easily than an employee, who has to go thru due process, and has employee rights. As an example, our business at one time had an anesthetist (independent contractor) at the end of her career, who only wanted to do "certain" types of cases. We were able to accommodate her preferences within some of our hospital contracts on days that we had additional staff scheduled, but she could not be scheduled "alone" at a facility.

http://business-law.lawyers.com/bus...ations-shield-owners-from-some-liability.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_contractor