What is the point of the protestation anyway? What did the Doctor expect to gain? That the two lesbian women would suddenly realize the sin and error of their ways and grab the first available christian man?

Really?

The kid has two loving parents. But they're lesbians. So the kid would be better off if the lesbians broke up, had a custody battle over the kid, and then each entered a sexless relationship with a Christian man.

ETA: Duh.

Nothing says "good-hearted" like punishing the child for the "sins" of the parents. What kind of asshole would do that?

Oh, wait.

(April 4, 2015 at 9:54 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The kid has two loving parents. But they're lesbians. So the kid would be better off if the lesbians broke up, had a custody battle over the kid, and then each entered a sexless relationship with a Christian man.

ETA: Duh.

Well to be accurate, christian sex doesn't require any kind of consent from the woman.. so it needn't  be sexless.

"I can't get away with burning and stoning people who are different from me like in the old days, but I can damn well make their lives more difficult."

(April 4, 2015 at 9:40 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Where's Heywood to call us progressitards for insisting this doctor be required to not discriminate her patients?

I can already hear his "gotcha" counter proposal. Isn't she age discriminating against older patients? Are gynecologists discriminating against men?

I take the position that both the doctor and you have the right to be assholes as long as you are not substantially hurting anyone in the process.  In this case the baby wasn't harmed in any way.  In the case of the pizzeria, it had to close because left winged whack jobs were threatening to burn it down.  You should be more outraged at that than this doctors refusal to take a baby into her census.....but you're not....because you are morally warped.

Would you be OK with a medical professional refusing to treat your kid because of the colour of your hair Heywood?

Or if you have no hair, because you are bald?

(April 6, 2015 at 6:22 am)Heywood Wrote:

(April 4, 2015 at 9:40 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Where's Heywood to call us progressitards for insisting this doctor be required to not discriminate her patients?

I can already hear his "gotcha" counter proposal. Isn't she age discriminating against older patients? Are gynecologists discriminating against men?

I take the position that both the doctor and you have the right to be assholes as long as you are not substantially hurting anyone in the process.  In this case the baby wasn't harmed in any way.  In the case of the pizzeria, it had to close because left winged whack jobs were threatening to burn it down.  You should be more outraged at that than this doctors refusal to take a baby into her census.....but you're not....because you are morally warped.

Heywood, there are still many small rural communities in which there might only be one practicing physician and the next nearest clinic/hospital is miles away.  In such circumstances, would a doctor's refusal to treat a child because he/she disapproved of her lesbian parents be ok with you?  How would that square with the doctor's obligation to first do no harm -- even potentially?

As for the pizzeria, if there were, in fact, threats to burn it down then I agree -- that is outrageous and not to be tolerated.  Of course, it is also a crime.  However, I have yet to see credible evidence that such threats were made, just the owners' claim that it happened.  Threats aside, the public has every right to boycott or otherwise lawfully drive a business into the ground if the owners are stupid enough to make public privately held opinions that are likely to strike others as bigoted.  I assume you don't disagree.

Original Hippocratic Oath (the modern one is basically a secular version of the original):
I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment.

I will reverence my master who taught me the art. Equally with my parents, will I allow him things necessary for his support, and will consider his sons as brothers. I will teach them my art without reward or agreement; and I will impart all my acquirement, instructions, and whatever I know, to my master's children, as to my own; and likewise to all my pupils, who shall bind and tie themselves by a professional oath, but to none else.

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

Further, I will comport myself and use my knowledge in a godly manner.

I will not cut for the stone, but will commit that affair entirely to the surgeons.

Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood, and (in an especial manner) from acts of an amorous nature, whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free.

Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast.
If I faithfully observe this oath, may I thrive and prosper in my fortune and profession, and live in the estimation of posterity; or on breach thereof, may the reverse be my fate!


Nowhere does it say "I can refuse treatment to anyone because I got a feeling my god wanted it so". Nowhere does it say "I have magical powers that allow me to know in advance - before examination - whether or not a patient will need my care".
Yes, the baby was healthy. However, that was only found out after she was examined by another doctor altogether. The doctor who was supposed to examine the baby had no possible way to know for certain if the baby was healthy. She refused to take care of her because she got a "feeling" during prayer that her god wanted her to do so. If the baby had died or had been sick, the outcome would have been much worse, but it'd still be, for all intents and purposes, malpractice.
Doctors can't refuse treating patients any more than policemen can refuse to answer 911 calls (no matter who calls) or firefighters can refuse to put out fires (no matter whose house is on fire). This "doctor" is worthless as a medical practitioner if she's going to refuse treating patients based on her feelings. She doesn't deserve the right to practice.

You take your kid to the hospital. It's had an accident, and it's bleeding to death. They're extremely busy, and there's only one surgeon who isn't already working on a patient. You are rushed in with your kid. The surgeon looks at your hair.

"You have brown hair. Sorry, that is offensive to my religion. I exercise my right to not have to provide my service to your child. I shall see if any other surgeons are available."

There aren't, as I've said. They're all involved in life saving surgery, and cannot just swap over with someone else. By the time one becomes available willing to treat your kid, it's too late and your kid has died.

Is this acceptable christians? Should the surgeon be held accountable for the death of the child, or should we protect his rights to not have to treat people when it's against his religion to do so?