Pediatrician Refuses to Treat Baby with Two Moms

[Elife3]

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/after-much-prayer-pediatrician-wont-treat-baby-111493634882.html

Scripturally speaking, homosexuality is wrong, and she is right in not having to accept their lifestyle, but when it comes to refusing treatment for the baby, I thought of Ezekiel 18:20 (relevant statements bolded for emphasis):

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Could this be a case where a baby is being punished for the mother's sin? What if the necessary care was life-saving? Did the doctor do the wrong thing here?

IMHO, I don't see how treating the baby has anything to do with approval/disapproval of the parents' lifestyle. I believe that homosexuality is sinful and I don't agree with their lifestyle, but should their baby be refused to be treated just because of the parents' sin?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Whatever moral stand one thinks they are making here is undermined by the fact that they are refusing to treat an infant.

Jesus had some harsh words to say about people like that. I believe He called them a brood of vipers and white washed tombs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[revanneosl]

The doctor isn't making a moral stand they're taking out their bigotry on a baby. Bet you a dollar this jerk considers themself "pro life".

 

[ViaCrucis]

The doctor isn't making a moral stand they're taking out their bigotry on a baby. Bet you a dollar this jerk considers themself "pro life".

I agree that it isn't a moral stand. But clearly we are talking about a physician who believes themselves to be taking some sort of moral stand against homosexuality by refusing to tend to the needs of an infant. That, of course, isn't a moral stand, but even assuming that is what they are trying to do, their actions betray even the possibility of a moral stance.

What we have here is the sort of person Jesus mentions in the Parable of the Good Samaritan who decided to walk right on by.

Any morality that would result in the suffering of the weak is a grotesque morality unworthy to be observed. It is in explicit conflict with God's will and Law which commands us to love our neighbor and tend to the Least of These. Any morality that requires one to violate Christ's Great Commandment is no morality at all. As there is no higher law than that we love God and love our neighbor as ourselves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

I agree that it isn't a moral stand. But clearly we are talking about a physician who believes themselves to be taking some sort of moral stand against homosexuality by refusing to tend to the needs of an infant. That, of course, isn't a moral stand, but even assuming that is what they are trying to do, their actions betray even the possibility of a moral stance.

On the other hand, freedom means being able to make decisions for yourself even if others don't think them justified. And I believe it still is the case that physicians are not government employees or engaged in interstate commerce and have the right to accept patients or, OTOH, decline to accept those they do not care to serve.

 

[revanneosl]

It's definitely time to amend the Civil Rights Act to cover sexual orientation and gender expression.

 

[ViaCrucis]

On the other hand, freedom means being able to make decisions for yourself even if others don't think them justified. And I believe it still is the case that physicians are not government employees or engaged in interstate commerce and have the right to accept patients or, OTOH, decline to accept those they do not care to serve.

Physicians may not be government employees, but last I checked a physician, by virtue of being a physician, have dedicated themselves to the profession of healing and medicine. Whether they have taken some form of the Hippocratic Oath or not, by practicing medicine they bear the weight of responsibility as practitioners of medicine.

If my doctor can refuse me aid because of the color of my skin, the color of my hair, how tall, short, skinny, or fat I am; whether or not I am single, married, gay, straight, or any number of factors then the entire practice of medicine becomes effectively worthless.

If someone is unwilling to help a small child because the parents of the child are in a same sex relationship then said person probably shouldn't be in the medical profession.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hospes]

If the Dr. is the only option for caring for this child, then I would agree with most of what is written so far. But if the infant can get equal care from another pediatrician, what necessitates the government forcing this doctor to violate his own conscience? And if the government can, where does it stop?

 

[Albion]

Physicians may not be government employees, but last I checked a physician, by virtue of being a physician, have dedicated themselves to the profession of healing and medicine. Whether they have taken some form of the Hippocratic Oath or not, by practicing medicine they bear the weight of responsibility as practitioners of medicine.

Nonsense. If that were the meaning of the Hippocratic Oath, every physician would feel obligated to be saving lives all around the world every minute of the day. Your complaint is nothing more than saying how awful it is that this one didn't squeeze in one more client in a day filled with appointments.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nonsense. If that were the meaning of the Hippocratic Oath, every physician would feel obligated to be saving lives all around the world every minute of the day. Your complaint is nothing more than saying how awful it is that this one didn't squeeze in one more client in a day filled with appointments.

No. My complaint is with a doctor discriminating against an infant because of the sexual orientation of the parents.

This isn't a case of cake makers or shoe cobblers refusing business to someone because of sexual orientation or anything of that sort; this is a case of a physician, a child physician, discriminating against a child because of their prejudices against homosexuals.

I simply fail to recognize how this is morally defensible. Let's keep in mind also that I have never once said the doctor should be forced by the government to change this; my argument has been a matter of of the ethics and morality of the situation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sickntired771]

This "doctor" is not following the hippocratic oath nor following the lessons of Jesus who came for everyone. What did this baby do to deserve not being treated? What did the moms do? Interacting with people and doing business doesn't mean you agree with them. Could you imagine if we gave a litmus test to everyone before we decide if we feel like giving them medical care. This is insanity, I hope he loses his license.

 

[Albion]

This "doctor" is not following the hippocratic oath nor following the lessons of Jesus who came for everyone. .

Are you saying, then, that the baby was left without any prospect of medical care? I'd say that all that happened was that this particular physician decided against having this particular person as a patient--which is nothing out of the ordinary at all.

 

[Albion]

No. My complaint is with a doctor discriminating against an infant because of the sexual orientation of the parents.

Exactly. It's not a matter of law, or the Hippocratic Oath (for heaven's sake ) or anything that sensational.

It's simply that he didn't make the decision that you would have preferred that he make. So let's just say it that way.

 

[revanneosl]

Also that he is a huge festering pustule of a bigoted jerk. Let's also say it that way.

 

[Albion]

Also that he is a huge festering pustule of a bigoted jerk. Let's also say it that way.

What I think is that the world is full of people who make questionable decisions, but we don't get to slander them or demand that something be done to them each time their judgment is not in line with our own--nor should we. Especially not as Christian people.

Personally, I find this doctor's decision to be peculiar and misplaced, but neither do I think that a sensible person should react by calling names or accusing him of malpractice or instantly reaching for the "there outta be a law!" card.

 

[yesyoushould]

I suppose it is a choice.

We, as a people, are free to choose.

 

[sickntired771]

Are you saying, then, that the baby was left without any prospect of medical care? I'd say that all that happened was that this particular physician decided against having this particular person as a patient--which is nothing out of the ordinary at all.

I don't know the circumstances nor are they relevant. What if this family is in a small town with one doctor and are hundreds of miles from competent care? In that case the baby would be left without medical care.

Even if there are thousands of doctors, discrimination on any basis is discrimination and becomes a slippery slope. What if the doctor chose not to treat a baby with Christian parents?

 

[Albion]

I don't know the circumstances nor are they relevant. What if this family is in a small town with one doctor and are hundreds of miles from competent care? In that case the baby would be left without medical care.

On the contrary, I'd say if those circumstances were real, it would be relevant.

Even if there are thousands of doctors, discrimination on any basis is discrimination and becomes a slippery slope.

We've got to get over this tendency to want to run everyone else's life.

What if the doctor chose not to treat a baby with Christian parents?

I think that might be against the law.

 

[sickntired771]

So it is against the law not treat a baby with Christian parents but it's ok to discriminate against a baby with same-sex parents? That's ridiculous and violates the protection of class based on sex.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Exactly. It's not a matter of law, or the Hippocratic Oath (for heaven's sake ) or anything that sensational.

It's simply that he didn't make the decision that you would have preferred that he make. So let's just say it that way.

I didn't say it was a matter of law. Though I do regard it as a violation of what it means to be a medical professional to put one's prejudices ahead of helping the most helpless among us. But my entire point in this thread has been that this physician has acted immorally and unethically.

And I expect that if a physician refused to treat a child because either the child or the child's parents on the basis of skin color, religion, or any other such factor that most here would share the expressed sentiment.

Would you regard a physician who refused to treat a family because they are Christian to be anything other than immoral and unethical?

Or to put it another way, would it be anything other than reprehensible for a physician to refuse to treat a child because the child's parents were drunkards? What if the parents were divorcees? What if the child was conceived as a result of rape, would refusing a child medical care because the father was a rapist be morally defensible?

So even permitting the fact that the physician in question regarded the child's parents to be engaged in sinful behavior, would we tolerate it even in regards to other sinful behaviors of parents? To deny a child care on the basis that the parents are a particular kind of sinner?

-CryptoLutheran