California doctors can't refuse treatment to gays on religious grounds, court rules

[cantata]

That's right.

Well, fair enough, I guess. *shrug*

 

[Ringo84]

Should the Hippocratic Oath be made law?

No. But it's unethical, in my opinion, for a doctor to refuse treatment simply based on sexual orientation.
Ringo

 

[funyun]

No. But it's unethical, in my opinion, for a doctor to refuse treatment simply based on sexual orientation.
Ringo

I unflinchingly agree. But in my opinion, our opinion should not be codified to dictate the actions of others, no matter how stupid, ignorant, or backwards they may be.

 

[Washington]

And child labor laws "carry no weight" in lots of third world countries. That doesn't make the lack of those laws just.

Whaaaa ??????

Just because a law exists, or does not exist, does not necessarily entail that the situation resulting from that law, or lack thereof, is just.

No one was talking about a subjective "just." You said,

"doctors in private practice should be allowed to deny non-emergency service to anyone they so choose, for any reason, or no reason, whatsoever."
​

"Any reason" and "no reason whatsoever" exceeds the notion of a "just" reason.

 

[funyun]

Whaaaa ??????

...analogy?

No one was talking about a subjective "just." You said,

"doctors in private practice should be allowed to deny non-emergency service to anyone they so choose, for any reason, or no reason, whatsoever."
​

"Any reason" and "no reason whatsoever" exceeds the notion of a "just" reason.

Umm, what? You made what appeared to me to be an argument from legality-- that because that law was on the books meant the law was just. I was pointing out that logical fallacy. Simply because the state of California deems x to be so does not invalidate my, or anyone's, view on the matter.

A doctor in private practice does not need to justify or give reason for denying non-emergency service to anyone. Regardless of the doctor's reasons-- which themselves may not be fair or just or ethical-- that right, to deny service, is, to me, just. Your view that he or she must-- that 'any reason' and 'no reason whatsoever' "exceed the notion of a just reason"-- is nothing more than your subjective notion of what is just. This entire thread is about subjective notions of "just"-- from the view that what the doctor who denies service does is unjust, to the view that this new law is unjust. But don't sit here and tell me my view of what is just is not part of the topic and then proceed to argue, based on your own notion of what is just, that legally-sanctioned force in this kind of scenario is Constitutionally valid or just. I'm arguing it isn't, you're arguing it is. Two subjective viewpoints. Got it?

 

[clarksided]

I thought a doctor's motto was "first, do no harm". How can a doctor "do no harm" if he refuses to treat a patient's illness due to religious belief?
Ringo

Just a little nitpick here: she didn't have an illness. She couldn't produce children because she wasn't interested in men. Her reproduction system was fine.

So yeah, like I said earlier, I don't think it's fair to call this doctor the spawn of satan. A little unethical, perhaps. That's up for debate (as is obvious by this topic).

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Just a little nitpick here: she didn't have an illness. She couldn't produce children because she wasn't interested in men. Her reproduction system was fine.

So yeah, like I said earlier, I don't think it's fair to call this doctor the spawn of satan. A little unethical, perhaps. That's up for debate (as is obvious by this topic).

Indeed, but I believe he provides this service for straight folks who are having problems conceiving.

So what if he decided to discriminate based on religion? - say he think Hindus are all going to hell so he doesn't want to help them have a child that would then probably go to hell.

What about ethnicity?

We as a society would never allow the above forms of discrimination.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Indeed, but I believe he provides this service for straight folks who are having problems conceiving.

So what if he decided to discriminate based on religion? - say he think Hindus are all going to hell so he doesn't want to help them have a child that would then probably go to hell.

What about ethnicity?

We as a society would never allow the above forms of discrimination.

I'm fully against any form of discrimination in which a life is put in danger though not future actions of other humans involved except the doctor. I say it like that so someone couldn't say "Do X or I will kill myself." to get around what ever their problem not actually being life threatening. Past that though, I don't think anyone should be forced in what services they give. Really, the market will work against them. If they discriminate against blacks, but their oppositions doesn't, then not only are they going to lose all the black customers, many, if not most, others will have a boycott against them. So they will soon be out of business. Otherwise you begin to force people to do things.

Completely forgetting about discrimination (temporarily), how do rights work? You have your rights up to the point they infringe on anthers by forcing them to do something. If I see you need CPR but stand by and say "I'm not 'kissing' him," I am perfectly in my rights. Your right to life does not override my right to control of my own body. But this changes once I take your life in my hands. Once I start performing CPR, I cannot stop outside of actually passing out from exhaustion. I have chosen to become your life support, and thus my waive my right to do as I will with my body till a professional gets there, or I leave you with someone else to do CPR. A life guard gives up their right to their own body, they have to save you if you are in trouble, though I am not sure about extreme circumstances where there own life would have a high chance of being lost. So if you right to life cannot infringe upon my right to my own body, then how can your right to not be discriminated against? Well, it is a simple answer, which is if I have given up my right or not. By choosing to accept certain government monies, you give up that right. But if you are in a private practice, have you given up that right? Well, a doctor has given up their right to do nothing if you need saving, especially when they are working at some clinic, but the question remains, have they given up their right to their own body when matched against your right not to be discriminated against. Well, the law currently seems to say yes. But now comes the question of is such a ruling moral/ethical or not.

What about this, you saw someone drowning, and you knowing you weren't the best swimmer, and knowing how drowning people pull others down with them, you decide to not help them. What if the Police come get you and say "We know you had an opportunity to save <name> but choose to let them die. As such, you are now being charged with manslaughter."

You would probably be very mad at the laws.

The point is most of us would be mad at the law if you were some bystander who choose not to help. Had instead you been a life guard, while many of us might not think you should be charged with manslaughter, we would have a good consensus that you should be fired and never work as a life guard again. This isn't actually a double standard as I have shown.



Lets put it this way, it is wrong for me to be forced to be friends with a homosexual, I can easily choose to discriminate against them, and that is my right. Some may say I am wrong for doing that, but I have to have some standards to whom my friends are, and as such, why is 'orientation' a bad thing while something like 'is fat and ugly' or 'is a jerk' or even 'is extremely mentally retarded' aren't?

P.S. I have homosexual friends, I don't discriminate against that. I am also 'friends', though I am not sure if he can even understand that concept, with a kid with down syndrome, though it has been a while since I last saw the guy. As such, the above standards are hypothetical and do not actually reflect my own.

 

[lawtonfogle]

We as a society would never allow the above forms of discrimination.

You state a conclusion, and even if you believe it is well agreed upon, you have been shown it isn't. As such, you need to show some premises and logically lead to that conclusion which we all can agree with.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

You state a conclusion, and even if you believe it is well agreed upon, you have been shown it isn't. As such, you need to show some premises and logically lead to that conclusion which we all can agree with.

I'm guessing you were bullied a lot growing up.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'm guessing you were bullied a lot growing up.

Actually, a thread in E&M shows that, but why do you say that? Mostly, I was bullied for body shape and speech impediment, my thought process never played a factor, luckily.

 

[tollyT]

This is simply insane.

As I think about this, what percentage of doctor's are withholding care because they don't agree with the lifestyle of the patient? I would bet less than 3 or 4 percent.

That begs the question, why can't the patient find a doctor who will treat regardless of the orientation of the patient?

Why does some knuckehead on a court bench have to trounce the rights of a person who simply disagrees with a client, and therefor, respectfully asks that client to seek services elsewhere?

Hey, Judge Knucklehead, didn't you learn in first year law school, Ethics class, that lawyers are allowed to advise clients to seek representation elsewhere? And the reasons for doing so are unlimited, and unqualified in most cases?

Doctors are workers, like garderners, plumbers, lawyers, barbers, etc. They don't have to work for you if they choose otherwise. Why should doctors be exempt from this priviledge?

Except the occasions where urgent, immediate medical action must be taken, a doctor should be able to choose his clients, or dischoose them, without having to justify that decision to anyone.

Respectfully,

Tolly

 

[BigBadWlf]

This is simply insane.

As I think about this, what percentage of doctor's are withholding care because they don't agree with the lifestyle of the patient?

What is the “lifestyle” you keep bringing up

Is it anything like the black lifestyle or the left handed lifestyle?

I would bet less than 3 or 4 percent.

Can you tell me at what percentage does discrimination become bad? 10%? 20%?

That begs the question, why can't the patient find a doctor who will treat regardless of the orientation of the patient?

Why couldn’t blacks in the deep south be happy sitting in the back of the bus? Couldn’t they have found drinking fountains that were not labeled “white only”?

Why does some knuckehead on a court bench have to trounce the rights of a person who simply disagrees with a client, and therefor, respectfully asks that client to seek services elsewhere?

Oh the poor doctors…all they wanted to do was discriminate against a minority? They are truly the victims here. Obviously their right to discriminate is far more important than any minorities right to be treated equally. It’s just like those poor people in the KKK all they want to do is terrorize people, burn a few crosses and maybe kidnap and murder a random black man now and then. But noooooo…those darn activist judges have to trounce the rights of a person who simply disagrees with them.

Doctors are workers, like garderners, plumbers, lawyers, barbers, etc. They don't have to work for you if they choose otherwise. Why should doctors be exempt from this priviledge?

Except the occasions where urgent, immediate medical action must be taken, a doctor should be able to choose his clients, or dischoose them, without having to justify that decision to anyone.

Respectfully,


Tolly

Because it is illegal to refuse services to a member of a minority just because they are a member of a minority. Which is just what the doctors did. The doctors in question are free to hate gays and lesbians all they want. They are free to hate blacks and Jews and Hispanics and the handicapped as well. What they are not allowed to do is discriminate against people just because that individual is a member of a minority.

 

[tollyT]

What is the “lifestyle” you keep bringing up

Is it anything like the black lifestyle or the left handed lifestyle?





Can you tell me at what percentage does discrimination become bad? 10%? 20%?




Why couldn’t blacks in the deep south be happy sitting in the back of the bus? Couldn’t they have found drinking fountains that were not labeled “white only”?



Oh the poor doctors…all they wanted to do was discriminate against a minority? They are truly the victims here. Obviously their right to discriminate is far more important than any minorities right to be treated equally. It’s just like those poor people in the KKK all they want to do is terrorize people, burn a few crosses and maybe kidnap and murder a random black man now and then. But noooooo…those darn activist judges have to trounce the rights of a person who simply disagrees with them.


Because it is illegal to refuse services to a member of a minority just because they are a member of a minority. Which is just what the doctors did. The doctors in question are free to hate gays and lesbians all they want. They are free to hate blacks and Jews and Hispanics and the handicapped as well. What they are not allowed to do is discriminate against people just because that individual is a member of a minority.

I have tried to be respectful to you. But answering my posts in the same manner, with the same rhetoric is getting annoying.

The point is simple. My posts are simple. If you had bothered to look, you would have seen my apology to certain verbs which offend you in the tread about the girl who was treated unfairly at her high school. Such as 'lifestyle', and 'choice'. Apparently, those words are not acceptable, and forbid I offend the 'Word Police',

In this present thread, my point is still simple. It has nothing to do with 'black', 'women', 'choice', 'orientation', or any other word with which you take offense.

Having said that, unless you can 'respond' to my inputs here, instead of attack every point I make with questions unrelated...get off my back, Jack.

Tolly

 

[tollyT]

By the way, we don't calculate discrimination by percentages.

 

[funyun]

It doesn't matter whether the people denied service were gay or black or anything. The debate is not about homophobia being the "last acceptable discrimination". The debate is about whether or not doctors have the right to deny service without being forced by the state.

The doctor doesn't have to justify denying service to anyone, no matter what bigoted reason he has for it. If he chooses to deny service to an African American couple who want fertility treatment, then that is, understandably and admirably, disapproved of. In my opinion he deserves to be reprimanded and ostracized by his peers and his community. But the state should have no power to punish him for that or force him to treat them. It doesn't matter if the couple is black, atheist, Muslim, or gay. He has the right to deny service to them all. Giving the state the kind of power to dictate that sort of thing is not liberty-- it is an abridgment of liberty. And it is, simply, totalitarian in nature.

 

[oldbetang]

So I assume your are against all anti-discrimination laws then? Employers should have the right to not hire you to work in THEIR company because you are black (or female or catholic or....)? What about a store putting up a sign saying whites only? It may be against the owners conscience to sell to the colored folks.

That's affirmative! I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws ,as they pertain to the private sector. Let the market decide! And decide it will. "Bad discrimination" will be rewarded accordingly.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

It doesn't matter whether the people denied service were gay or black or anything. The debate is not about homophobia being the "last acceptable discrimination". The debate is about whether or not doctors have the right to deny service without being forced by the state.

The doctor doesn't have to justify denying service to anyone, no matter what bigoted reason he has for it. If he chooses to deny service to an African American couple who want fertility treatment, then that is, understandably and admirably, disapproved of. In my opinion he deserves to be reprimanded and ostracized by his peers and his community. But the state should have no power to punish him for that or force him to treat them. It doesn't matter if the couple is black, atheist, Muslim, or gay. He has the right to deny service to them all. Giving the state the kind of power to dictate that sort of thing is not liberty-- it is an abridgment of liberty. And it is, simply, totalitarian in nature.

You're argument might work in the present case where this is an isolated case and someone could probably drive a couple miles and find another doctor.

But what if this were the segregated South, and every doctor in the area were white and all refused to treat blacks?

Any reasonable society would hold that any member of that society should have access to things like health care.

It is one thing if one doctor refuses and the one next door doesn't, but society does have a reason to regulate behavior when it results in a systematic and insurmountable unavailability of some service to some group.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Actually, a thread in E&M shows that, but why do you say that? Mostly, I was bullied for body shape and speech impediment, my thought process never played a factor, luckily.

Because that post had all the characteristics of an individual issues who thinks they have found a pond small enough that they can be the big fish in it.

 

[seeker777]

What kind of doctor would refuse a human being treatment based on their sexual orientation?

A bad one?

They shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine at all.

Agreed, as clearly, they place their views on same sex attraction before the needs of a patient.

I can understand not wanting to perform abortions, but exactly what is the point of this sort of refusal?

Maybe they're a bigot.