Pediatrician Refuses Treatment of Baby of Lesbian Parents

[Mothonis]

He honestly should be banned all he ever does advocate for discrimination. I bet if this where a majority atheist country he would change his views.

[robvalue]

I'm still wondering how jesus' precious golden rule figures into this arbitrary discrimination christians like to hand out. Christians are very good at screaming persecution when you just try and stop them having special treatment, let alone actually discriminating against them.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I agree with Heyweird. Let the doctors select patients based upon their own personal bigotries. Then protest right outside of their clinics, and put them out of business.  Assholes like that are better suited for data-entry jobs anyway; they have no business caring for people, and this sort of process would winkle them out.

This is another form of coercion, but I am not opposed to it.  People have a right to assemble and speak peacefully.  However I would not recommend it.  All it does is create doctors who serve people they do not want to serve.  Instead of being focused wholly on the patient in front of them, at least on a subconscious  level their mind is still dealing with disgust and anger at being forced to do something they don't want to do.  
By letting people serve the people they want to serve you increase the quality of service.

Higher Quality of Service > Preventing Butthurt

You can't quantify any of that aside dealing out assertions. It is entirely bunk and not backed up with anything credible.

RE: Bold.

You should never be a doctor who doesn't want to serve people, ever, period. If you are, you shouldn't be a doctor. You are acting unethically and would be struck off in any enlightened society with a coherent medical system in place. It increasingly seems like either the US isn't, or you're advocating an unethical and thus unworkable system.

RE Italics. Complete and utter bull. Medicine is not a bank. You (shouldn't) be able to chose who to treat based on a credit rating. Simply saying 'higher QOS' without anything to evidence what that is or what it would look like means it's total nonsense. Higher QOS could stem from a system where people know they will be treated with dignity and without fear of prejudice or discrimination. It could stem from a system people know is well funded through a comprehensive tax system and where patients aren't living in constant fear of getting ill or being injured because they are unable to pay for private healthcare insurance which in many cases won't cover them even if they do have it.

Again, to keep reiterating, you subscribe to a higher ethical code than anything you may personally adhere to once you've completed your medical degree and pre reg with the aim of practising. Personal preference for who you want to treat may come into your decision for when you, say, set up a clinic or surgery, but you can't reject people who come into your surgery seeking treatment. That would be unethical, and there is a very good chance one would lose their license to practise if they acted in that light.

What if there wasn't another pediatrician to treat this child? What if the child died following the refusal of the given pediatrician to heal? What if this behavior was not only allowed but supported and endorsed through a medical ethical board or chartered body responsible for regulating medical ethics? "Do whatever you want".

It's complete garbage and junk pseudo-business discourse shoehorned into medical ethics.

[Heywood]

This is another form of coercion, but I am not opposed to it.  People have a right to assemble and speak peacefully.  However I would not recommend it.  All it does is create doctors who serve people they do not want to serve.  Instead of being focused wholly on the patient in front of them, at least on a subconscious  level their mind is still dealing with disgust and anger at being forced to do something they don't want to do.  
By letting people serve the people they want to serve you increase the quality of service.

Higher Quality of Service > Preventing Butthurt

You can't quantify any of that aside dealing out assertions. It is entirely bunk and not backed up with anything credible.

RE: Bold.

You should never be a doctor who doesn't want to serve people, ever, period. If you are, you shouldn't be a doctor. You are acting unethically and would be struck off in any enlightened society with a coherent medical system in place. It increasingly seems like either the US isn't, or you're advocating an unethical and thus unworkable system.

RE Italics. Complete and utter bull. Medicine is not a bank. You (shouldn't) be able to chose who to treat based on a credit rating. Simply saying 'higher QOS' without anything to evidence what that is or what it would look like means it's total nonsense. Higher QOS could stem from a system where people know they will be treated with dignity and without fear of prejudice or discrimination. It could stem from a system people know is well funded through a comprehensive tax system and where patients aren't living in constant fear of getting ill or being injured because they are unable to pay for private healthcare insurance which in many cases won't cover them even if they do have it.

Again, to keep reiterating, you subscribe to a higher ethical code than anything you may personally adhere to once you've completed your medical degree and pre reg with the aim of practising. Personal preference for who you want to treat may come into your decision for when you, say, set up a clinic or surgery, but you can't reject people who come into your surgery seeking treatment. That would be unethical, and there is a very good chance one would lose their license to practise if they acted in that light.

What if there wasn't another pediatrician to treat this child? What if the child died following the refusal of the given pediatrician to heal? What if this behavior was not only allowed but supported and endorsed through a medical ethical board or chartered body responsible for regulating medical ethics? "Do whatever you want".

It's complete garbage and junk pseudo-business discourse shoehorned into medical ethics.

Your whole argument is an expression of your values.  Your values are not a compelling argument.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Medicine is entirely about values (& ethics). That's the point you're missing. You're going full pelt into the business/economic side and completely dismissing the ethical base to which all doctors and indeed medical staff are subject to, which again, to keep re-iterating, supersedes any personal ethical or moral views and beliefs.

I don't find your junk pseudo business discourse very compelling either. So go figure.

[Heywood]

Medicine is entirely about values (& ethics). That's the point you're missing. You're going full pelt into the business/economic side and completely dismissing the ethical base to which all doctors and indeed medical staff are subject to, which again, to keep re-iterating, supersedes any personal ethical or moral views and beliefs.  

I don't find your junk pseudo business discourse very compelling either. So go figure.

Your position seems to be that healthcare is a fundamental right(please correct me if I am wrong).....that those who provide it should do so without any question or qualms.  Well sex is a fundamental right....does that mean we can force people to have sex with each other because they should be doing so anyways without any questions or qualms?  Of course not.  Why?  Because even though you can provide a service which is a fundamental right to everyone, you always retain the right of self determination.  You always retain the right to refuse...for any reason...and people should not hate you when you do.

[abaris]

Your position seems to be that healthcare is a fundamental right(please correct me if I am wrong).....that those who provide it should do so without any question or qualms.  Well sex is a fundamental right....does that mean we can force people to have sex with each other because they should be doing so anyways without any questions or qualms?

Asinine comparison. One is an urge and the other should indeed be a fundamental right. It is the hallmark of a civilized society to not let it's people rot in the street or die of preventable causes. In most civilized countries it is, in many cases since the late 19th century. Bismarck introduced it in Germany in the 1880ies. Not because he loved the great unwashed that much, but because he knew it to be a way to keep people from radicalising.

And don't give that unfounded argument of doctors not getting paid in a social society. They're as rich as in the states if they're not sucking at their job. The only difference being that the states provide the insurance for their citizens by using their taxes and contributions instead of private insurers making an additional dime.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Medicine is entirely about values (& ethics). That's the point you're missing. You're going full pelt into the business/economic side and completely dismissing the ethical base to which all doctors and indeed medical staff are subject to, which again, to keep re-iterating, supersedes any personal ethical or moral views and beliefs.  

I don't find your junk pseudo business discourse very compelling either. So go figure.

Your position seems to be that healthcare is a fundamental right(please correct me if I am wrong).....that those who provide it should do so without any question or qualms.  Well sex is a fundamental right....does that mean we can force people to have sex with each other because they should be doing so anyways without any questions or qualms?  Of course not.  Why?  Because even though you can provide a service which is a fundamental right to everyone, you always retain the right of self determination.  You always retain the right to refuse...for any reason...and people should not hate you when you do.

Except when you're a medical professional who has taken an oath to do no harm (most practising doctors) and are ethically bound to treat/refer anyone and everyone who comes to you without prejudice (all medical staff & professionals). Of course, anyone is free to breach that ethical framework, but they just can't practise medicine legally anymore if they do. ^_^

I urge all readers and contributors of this thread to go back and see if they can find a decent link between what Heywood is talking about here in relation to what others have said, then get back to me if you find the link because I'm coming up empty.

[Heywood]

Your position seems to be that healthcare is a fundamental right(please correct me if I am wrong).....that those who provide it should do so without any question or qualms.  Well sex is a fundamental right....does that mean we can force people to have sex with each other because they should be doing so anyways without any questions or qualms?

Asinine comparison. One is an urge and the other should indeed be a fundamental right. It is the hallmark of a civilized society to not let it's people rot in the street or die of preventable causes. In most civilized countries it is, in many cases since the late 19th century. Bismarck introduced it in Germany in the 1880ies. Not because he loved the great unwashed that much, but because he knew it to be a way to keep people from radicalising.

And don't give that unfounded argument of doctors not getting paid in a social society. They're as rich as in the states if they're not sucking at their job. The only difference being that the states provide the insurance for their citizens by using their taxes and contributions instead of private insurers making an additional dime.

If sex is not a fundamental right...just an urge....then there is nothing wrong with the state banning the acting upon the urge to have homosexual sex.

The truth is, if there is anything that is fundamental it is sex.  We have been having sex before we began to exchange goods and services, and we have been having sex since before we began to practice medicine.  If we retain our right of refusal in providing sex, why can't we retain our right of refusal in providing medicine?

You guys can rationalize this all you want, but the truth is, you really want to control the actions of others.  You want to use the force of law to make others behave as you think they should be have for no good reason other than that is what you think is just and proper.

And here I am labeled a troll, I am warned by the moderators, for calling you out on it.  But it is the truth.

---

Except when you're a medical professional who has taken an oath to do no harm (most practising doctors) and are ethically bound to treat/refer anyone and everyone who comes to you without prejudice (all medical staff & professionals). Of course, anyone is free to breach that ethical framework, but they just can't practise medicine legally anymore if they do. ^_^

That is right. If you make it illegal then somehow your position is magically justified.

Sorry it don't work that way.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Fuck off. If you can't see the ludicrous base behind effectively letting doctors do whatever they want without any care for medical ethics then you really are as dumb as everyone says.

And equally, drawing the comparison between variants of doing no harm and homosexuality is so fucking warped and tangential only a theist off his rocker on Jesus juice could forward it with a straight face.

Thank the Lord that at least you're a junk pseudo 'economist' touting nonsensical shoehorned discourse rather than an unethical uncaring medical professional who would throw the gays into a ditch where you supposedly believe they belong.