Michigan Pediatrician Refuses to Treat Lesbian Couple's Baby

[DrJonesenberg]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...jam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow

tl;dr Parents show up with 6 day old and are told the doctor prayed on it and can't see them because they're lesbians.

Besides this being wrong for a physician to do, can she legally do this?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...jam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow

tl;dr Parents show up with 6 day old and are told the doctor prayed on it and can't see them because they're lesbians.

Besides this being wrong for a physician to do, can she legally do this?

She can do whatever she wants and it's actually not an ethics violation per current AMA guidelines. We've already beat this to death in the SPF.

Personally I find it unethical, but there's no violation here that should cost her her license or her position. She did her best to handle it in a decent manner- got them another caregiver, etc.

 

[deleted480308]

Two threads on this already

 

[jdh71]

Two threads on this already

It's an outrage. I'm outraged.

There needs be outlet for the outrage.

I might even type in call caps. I'm that outraged.

 

[Apoplexy__]

I might even type in all caps. I'm that outraged.

Whoa whoa whoa...no need to let things get out of control now

 

[3rdan]

So this doc should forfeit her livelihood because somebody's feelings got hurt? She broke no laws, violated no binding guidelines. There was no patient abandonment. Her real problem? She was too damn honest when she wrote her letter, when all she had to do was invent an excuse. Now half of the country wants to crucify her.

 

[charmiedermie]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...jam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow

tl;dr Parents show up with 6 day old and are told the doctor prayed on it and can't see them because they're lesbians.

Besides this being wrong for a physician to do, can she legally do this?

I believe it is legal as long as you find another doctor who will take them. If Roi was aware they were lesbians either she was trying to find out if she could deny them from her practice but wasn't sure or she would give them a chance and see if she could handle it, and saw that she just couldn't.

The cutie baby didn't decide this for herself so I don't know how someone can let the baby suffer the consequences bc of the parents.

Her Vitals.com page is being destroyed with up to 321 ratings and 119 reviews. So there is karma.

 

[MajorBubblez]

It sucks, but there's no way we can force a doc to see someone. We live in such a soft culture these days. Just move on and find another (albeit less discriminant) doc.

 

[DocVapor]

It sucks, but there's no way we can force a doc to see someone. We live in such a soft culture these days. Just move on and find another (albeit less discriminant) doc.

What do you mean "We live in such a soft culture these days."?

Do you mean soft because physicians can't be forced to see patients, or soft in the fact that everyone's feelings get hurt?

 

[MajorBubblez]

What do you mean "We live in such a soft culture these days."?

Do you mean soft because physicians can't be forced to see patients, or soft in the fact that everyone's feelings get hurt?

The latter

 

[Imnotfromjersey]

Aren't the AMA and state licensure boards seperate entitys?

 

[deleted480308]

I dont not understand why people and articles keep citing some exerpt from ama policy on this issue. Aren't the AMA and state licensure boards completely seperate entitys?

The AMA endorsed the ACA...couldn't give two craps what they think

 

[jdh71]

I believe it is legal as long as you find another doctor who will take them. If Roi was aware they were lesbians either she was trying to find out if she could deny them from her practice but wasn't sure or she would give them a chance and see if she could handle it, and saw that she just couldn't.

The cutie baby didn't decide this for herself so I don't know how someone can let the baby suffer the consequences bc of the parents.

Her Vitals.com page is being destroyed with up to 321 ratings and 119 reviews. So there is karma.

Yes. Punish her. Punish her severely.

 

[jdh71]

I dont not understand why people and articles keep citing some exerpt from ama policy on this issue. Aren't the AMA and state licensure boards completely seperate entitys?

Yes they are two separate entities and most physicians these days don't even belong to the AMA but the AMA does have a pretty well worked out schema of the commonly understood and accepted medical ethics that we use in this country.

 

[CrocodilePancake]

OMG an anti- _______ OSTEOPATH how dare she!
but for realz, this is pretty redic

 

[MajorBubblez]

I believe it is legal as long as you find another doctor who will take them. If Roi was aware they were lesbians either she was trying to find out if she could deny them from her practice but wasn't sure or she would give them a chance and see if she could handle it, and saw that she just couldn't.

The cutie baby didn't decide this for herself so I don't know how someone can let the baby suffer the consequences bc of the parents.

Her Vitals.com page is being destroyed with up to 321 ratings and 119 reviews. So there is karma.

This is how to respond to these situations though. Let ill will and individuals take care of it. Don't have the gov fighting these stupid battles.

 

[Shikima]

This is how to respond to these situations though. Let ill will and individuals take care of it. Don't have the gov fighting these stupid battles.

How else will the lawyers feed?

 

[MrChance2]

"I prayed a lot and God told me to not care for this 6 day old child." Pray harder?

 

[MajorBubblez]

How else will the lawyers feed?

They can get a second job at McD's instead of docs.

 

[MajorBubblez]

"I prayed a lot and God told me to not care for this 6 day old child." Pray harder?

It's a terrible and flimsy excuse, but we can't and shouldn't force her.

 

[Psai]

She can see whoever she wants. I also think it's unethical and doesn't fit with the spirit of being of physician but no reason to write a news article about it. Just tell them to go see a new pediatrician goddamn

 

[PL198]

how is this wrong again? care hasn't be compromised, the doc is well within what is acceptable.

 

[touchpause13]

how is this wrong again? care hasn't be compromised, the doc is well within what is acceptable.

A lot of us don't think it's morally acceptable to not treat a 6 day old because her parents have the gay.

For the 50th time though I don't think what she did was illegal or should be illegal, it just goes against my personal view of ethics, med ethics, and I think she acted like a dingus

 

[fishingboat]

the doc exercised what may well be her right to treat only certain patients. she also spoke, as she is free to, about why she did that. that she appears to be suffering the social consequences of exercising those freedoms is entirely appropriate. i can't say it better than this:

"speech has private social consequences, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. Whether sincere or motivated by poseur edginess, controversial words have social consequences. Those social consequences are inseparable from the free speech and free association rights of the people imposing them. It is flatly irrational to suggest that I should be able to act like a dick without being treated like a dick by my fellow citizens."
https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/

 

[PL198]

There are a lot of things I think are people acting like jerks, but you don't see those plastered on the news.

 

[touchpause13]

There are a lot of things I think are people acting like jerks, but you don't see those plastered on the news.

No one is stopping you from exercising your free speech and talking about someone acting like a jerk. It's well within your rights to point out if someone is being a dingus. Yes the doc had the right to do what she did, but so do the parents. They don't have any legal case, so it only makes sense that they would go for the "tell everyone that Dr. whatherface was a jerk" route.

 

[deleted480308]

No one is stopping you from exercising your free speech and talking about someone acting like a jerk. It's well within your rights to point out if someone is being a dingus. Yes the doc had the right to do what she did, but so do the parents. They don't have any legal case, so it only makes sense that they would go for the "tell everyone that Dr. whatherface was a jerk" route.

just spitballin' here.....any guess on odds they called a civil rights lawyer to talk about a suit?

 

[touchpause13]

just spitballin' here.....any guess on odds they called a civil rights lawyer to talk about a suit?

Oh they probably will, because most people are dumb and will take any opportunity possible to advance a cause or make money. Hopefully the lawyer they find will tell them it's a stupid move and would not only not win, but would probably be a net negative for the movement as a whole. but..... idk.

 

[deleted480308]

Oh they probably will, because most people are dumb and will take any opportunity possible to advance a cause or make money. Hopefully the lawyer they find will tell them it's a stupid move and would not only not win, but would probably be a net negative for the movement as a whole. but..... idk.

I would hope....but then again there was the cake law suit and the lawsuit about the christian wedding chapel not wanting host a marriage.....I'm going to go with 99% that some shopping for a lawyer was done

 

[MajorBubblez]

Oh they probably will, because most people are dumb and will take any opportunity possible to advance a cause or make money. Hopefully the lawyer they find will tell them it's a stupid move and would not only not win, but would probably be a net negative for the movement as a whole. but..... idk.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if she did win a suit. What a sad state.

 

[touchpause13]

In my mind, the smart move would be to for the couple to instead work on advocating for better physician training in LGBT issues by speaking and writing (intellegently of course) on the issue.

 

[jdh71]

There are a lot of things I think are people acting like jerks, but you don't see those plastered on the news.

The outrage machine leans left . . .

 

[jdh71]

A lot of us don't think it's morally acceptable to not treat a 6 day old because her parents have the gay.

For the 50th time though I don't think what she did was illegal or should be illegal, it just goes against my personal view of ethics, med ethics, and I think she acted like a dingus

But that's the rub. There wasn't a time when this child "wasn't treated".

 

[touchpause13]

But that's the rub. There time when this child "wasn't treated".

The provider didn't treat her, she found someone else who would.

Are we really going to have the same conversation over again?

 

[jdh71]

The provider didn't treat her, she found someone else who would.

Are we really going to have the same conversation over again?

We might.

I fail to see how your point is even relevant though since there was never a break or even a delay in care or expertise.

What most people are reacting to is the "thought crime" part of the scenario.

 

[touchpause13]

We might.

I fail to see how your point is even relevant though since there was never a break or even a delay in care or expertise.

What most people are reacting to is the "thought crime" part of the scenario.

It just comes down to us having different ideas about ethics. You are more focused on outcome, that's fine. I think that even if something has a good or neutral outcome the act in itself can be unethical.

I don't really have anything else to add that I haven't said already

 

[fishingboat]

We might.

I fail to see how your point is even relevant though since there was never a break or even a delay in care or expertise.

What most people are reacting to is the "thought crime" part of the scenario.

Not "thought" since it was speech and an act, not a thought. And not "crime" since no criminal or civil sanction has occurred (nor does it appear to be within the realm of possibility). People are reacting to an act of discrimination and speech used to justify discrimination. In this, our free society, that reaction is entitled to all the same deference as the original act. Striking a martyr's pose is also quite allowed, though not terribly convincing.

 

[charmiedermie]

Yes. Punish her. Punish her severely.

Who said she's being punished? Karma came back 10 fold for her, or in this case now 342 Vitals ratings averaging 1.5 stars, now 125 reviews, and her practice getting 129 1 star Google reviews - all from individuals. I think of it as the free market doing its work. Those in the LGBT community have the right to know she won't treat them or their children.

This is how to respond to these situations though. Let ill will and individuals take care of it. Don't have the gov fighting these stupid battles.

I agree with you.

 

[jdh71]

It just comes down to us having different ideas about ethics. You are more focused on outcome, that's fine. I think that even if something has a good or neutral outcome the act in itself can be unethical.

I don't really have anything else to add that I haven't said already

I'm not only focused on the outcome. Let's say this doctor had to deal with an emergency situation and arranged to have her partner see the patient. Unethical?

 

[jdh71]

Not "thought" since it was speech and an act, not a thought. And not "crime" since no criminal or civil sanction has occurred (nor does it appear to be within the realm of possibility). People are reacting to an act of discrimination and speech used to justify discrimination. In this, our free society, that reaction is entitled to all the same deference as the original act. Striking a martyr's pose is also quite allowed, though not terribly convincing.

"Thought crime" was in quotes for a reason. I never said it was just a thought nor did I say it was a real crime. Try less strawmen in this discussion. It's a concept not a description in the specific, but . . . I bet you already knew that and were just trying to be pedantic for effect.

Everyone is entitled to everything they are entitled too. Agreed. No argument.

 

[charmiedermie]

I'm not only focused on the outcome. Let's say this doctor had to deal with an emergency situation and arranged to have her partner see the patient. Unethical?

After the emergency, does the original doctor not see that patient on the next visit?

 

[jdh71]

Who said she's being punished? Karma came back 10 fold for her, or in this case now 342 Vitals ratings averaging 1.5 stars, now 125 reviews, and her practice getting 129 1 star Google reviews - all from individuals. I think of it as the free market doing its work. Those in the LGBT community have the right to know she won't treat them or their children.

The free market PUNISHING her for her opinion. Yes.

I think you have to be more than a little obtuse or perhaps intellectually dishonest not to see the punishment here, even if you agree it's justifiable or a naural consequence. It's happening. You brought up karam. What is karma after all if not the recompense for the life lived, some to positive ends and some to negative ends. I don't think it's that hard even for medical students to see that negative karma is really just punishment of one form.

 

[fishingboat]

"Thought crime" was in quotes for a reason. I never said it was just a thought nor did I say it was a real crime. Try less strawmen in this discussion. It's a concept not a description in the specific, but . . . I bet you already knew that and were just trying to be pedantic for effect.

Everyone is entitled to everything they are entitled too. Agreed. No argument.

Ha ok. Then please explain what you mean. What is the "'thought crime' part of the scenario" that people are reacting to, and what, if any, objection do you have to it?

 

[Shikima]

Who said she's being punished? Karma came back 10 fold for her, or in this case now 342 Vitals ratings averaging 1.5 stars, now 125 reviews, and her practice getting 129 1 star Google reviews - all from individuals. I think of it as the free market doing its work. Those in the LGBT community have the right to know she won't treat them or their children.

I agree with you.

Of course they're all previous patients too....

 

[jdh71]

After the emergency, does the original doctor not see that patient on the next visit?

That's a different scenario. Nor is it an answer the question I posed.

 

[fishingboat]

I'm not only focused on the outcome. Let's say this doctor had to deal with an emergency situation and arranged to have her partner see the patient. Unethical?

You're not getting the issue. It is not that she didn't see the patient. It is that she discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and then spoke out about her reasons.

 

[jdh71]

Ha ok. Then please explain what you mean. What is the "'thought crime' part of the scenario" that people are reacting to, and what, if any, objection do you have to it?

The thought crime part of the scenario? Am I taking crazy pills in here again??

Clearly the reaction is to the fact that this physician didn't see the patient personally because the patient's parents were gay.

This particular fact did not delay the patient's care, nor did the patient not see the same specialty care on the same day and at the same time agreed upon. Nothing untoward happened to the patient at all. Therefore it's not really possible to make a case of "medical ethics".

So what everyone is upset by is the opinion of the physician in question. I don't have any particular objection to your reaction. You are free to it and it's a free country and free internet. Yay. God bless America. But don't try and make this case into something it was not and recognize that the reaction to the doctor's thoughts - the thought crime - and not any real action.

 

[jdh71]

You're not getting the issue. It is not that she didn't see the patient. It is that she discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and then spoke out about her reasons.

Right. Her thought crime.

I promise I understand the issue fine.

 

[fishingboat]

The thought crime part of the scenario? Am I taking crazy pills in here again??

Clearly the reaction is to the fact that this physician didn't see the patient personally because the patient's parents were gay.

This particular fact did not delay the patient's care, nor did the patient not see the same specialty care on the same day and at the same time agreed upon. Nothing untoward happened to the patient at all. Therefore it's not really possible to make a case of "medical ethics".

So what everyone is upset by is the opinion of the physician in question. I don't have any particular objection to your reaction. You are free to it and it's a free country and free internet. Yay. God bless America. But don't try and make this case into something it was not and recognize that the reaction to the doctor's thoughts - the thought crime - and not any real action.

Yeah, you don't mean thought crime, except you do. You're not getting the issue. It is not about thoughts--it is about actions, particularly discrimination and speech.

 

[fishingboat]

Right. Her thought crime.

I promise I understand the issue fine.

Exactly! you are not getting it. Discrimination in the provision of medical treatment and speaking about why you did it is not a thought. Read that again slowly.