Should doctors be allowed to withhold medical care to gays/lesbians?

[Pangloss]

This is one of those cases that initially sounds very simple, but turns out to be rather complex. Or maybe it isn't.

 

California's highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

 

Oh dear! How awful those doctors must be, denying medical care to gays and lesbians! Let's listen to the obligatory media straw man, shall we?

 

"It was an awful thing to go through," Benitez said. "It was very painful — the fact that you have someone telling you they will not help you because of who you are, that they will deny your right to be a mother and have a family."

 

Oh my god! Are you telling me he refused to help a pregnant woman dying on the sidewalk?!?!?!?!?! Er wait, how did he know she was a lesbian?

 

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children.

 

... Um ...

 

Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.

 

<insert patented Jon Stewart camera stare here>

 

I see. So this wasn't about emergency care, it was about an elective procedure, other doctors were available, and what we're really saying here is that the doctor's feelings are less important than this woman's feelings, because she is a lesbian, and they are doctors.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFyZOb5FfQtyvQ6N-Ypy1xR6pTZwD92KTJQG1

[PhDP]

?

 

What it says is that doctors can't discriminate based on sexual orientations. Her "feelings" are not more important because she's a lesbian, and I have no idea how you reached this conclusion, she jusgt has the right to have the same treatment as anyone else.

[DJBruce]

Personally, I feel that if it is a private clinic and the treatment is not an emergency then the doctor should have every right to withhold treatment for whatever reason. I agree with Pangloss the court is putting the woman's feelings ahead of the doctors feelings.

 

This in a way is also removing his freedom of religion by forcing him to practice something he does not want to. If this every goes to the Supreme Court I bet that it will be overturned in a heart beat.

[doG]

Hath not the doctor made promise to put the feelings of his patient ahead of his own by swearing to do no harm in his Hippocratic Oath?

[Sayonara]

Yes, instead of characterising doctors as being evil gay-haters, let's characterise lesbians as being unreasonable gold-diggers.

 

Think that sort of thing is perhaps better off on your blog, Pangloss.

 

I see. So this wasn't about emergency care, it was about an elective procedure, other doctors were available, and what we're really saying here is that the doctor's feelings are less important than this woman's feelings, because she is a lesbian, and they are doctors.

So what if it was elective? The law is there to prevent people acting in a professional capacity from denying service because of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with that service. We have the same law (well, virtually) in the UK.

 

See if you can find any other laws pertaining to service provision that run along the lines of "It's unlawful to deny service on the basis of X, unless, y'know, you don't really think it's that urgent the customer gets that service, or... like... if there's somewhere else they could for it go within oooh say 50km."

 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the doctor's feelings, either. When you act in a professional capacity, you hang your personal life and your prejudices at the door. That is part of what being "professional" is all about, and the fact that some people need it legislating into them is just sad, not license to acknowledge it as the norm.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Sayonara³

[john5746]

I wonder what the religious belief is? That gay people should not have children or that unmarried people should not have children? If its just gay people, then you can replace that with any minority to see the problem easily. If it is single mothers, then it is another reason that gay marriage should be allowed.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not sure about this. In this case it apparently didn't really make any difference, because there was another doctor willing to do it. But I'd be wary of making a blanket decision about this kind of thing because there are so many different circumstances that can change things. What if there wasn't another one available? I mean, I guess there's always other doctors somewhere, but it's a practicality issue, and it's easy to come up with nightmare scenarios. Does the only doctor on the tropical island get to refuse care on moral grounds if he gives you the address of the hospital in Honolulu? That's extreme, but pretty much any medical procedure is time sensitive, right? Having to find someone else is pretty obviously an inherent disadvantage, even if 90% of the time it's a very minor one. Maybe they should be able to refuse care if they can foist it off on someone else with little trouble. (Then what have they actually accomplished with their refusal?)

 

As for the oath, it's hard to say. Maybe they think they're "doing harm" by inseminating a lesbian? That seems like a dangerous road to go down, though, and I'm sure those kinds of "freer" interpretations are discouraged.

 

Since no one else has mentioned this yet, I should point out that this closely parallels the controversy of pro-life pharmacists refusing to dispense the morning after pill. If I'm not mistaken, laws about that are all over the place, state by state.

[iNow]

This thread is offensive to my religion, and I hereby demand that you stop discussing it.

 

More religiously inspired stupidity. How bad must this world get before people realize it's a bunch of ludicrous nonsense and discard it like they did Thor and Zeus?

 

God told me he didn't want me to fill your prescription for birth control, but for some reason he allowed the doctor to prescribe it, the pharmaceutical companies to design it, and you to want it... But MY god is the most important, so nanner nanner boo boo.

 

Oh yeah, and he wants me to discriminate against your gayness even though "he" made you gay.

 

 

Morons.

[Pangloss]

In this case it apparently didn't really make any difference, because there was another doctor willing to do it. But I'd be wary of making a blanket decision about this kind of thing because there are so many different circumstances that can change things.

 

Exactly, as usual Sisyphus nailed it with both the pros and cons.

 

The parallel with the pharmacies is important. I support freedom of choice by patients, and I completely agree with the suggestions that these options are important. I'm not putting her behind the doctor or ostracizing her instead of the doctor (the straw man from Sayo's post). What I'm saying is that the doctor has a legitimate freedom as well, and we have to recognize it because we purport to be a free society. Ignoring it is wrong.

 

This order requires him to physically do something, with his very hands, that is anathema to him. He's gone through years of training and personal effort, and he hasn't been rewarded by society for that or given special privileges of any kind -- he WORKS for a living, remember? He's no king sitting in a high castle. He's a working joe who just may make a little more than you (and has the debt to prove it).

 

That having been said, if we're going to decide as a society that these medical practices are going to be available to the public, and that that's a recognized freedom, then maybe we also have an obligation as a society to provide that service. That may mean direct government-sponsored services in areas that don't make them available. In this case making a doctor available to this person, perhaps paying for airfare or other services. In the case of pharmacists unwilling to provide birth control (etc), it may mean direct government intervention as well.

 

I agree that personal choice can't be allowed to create a situation where services aren't available due to nobody wanting to provide them in an area. But forcing the doctors and pharmacists to do something they don't want to do, under threat of legal action, is a serious breach of their basic civil liberties.

 

Bear in mind that legally they can't even quit. It's a law, they can't just throw down the ol' scalpel and give up being a doctor over this. They have to provide this service, or go to jail.

 

I don't want to get into slippery slopes, but we can draw analogies with other jobs. How about a scientist being told what to research, "or else"? And not by his employer, which would allow him to quit and pursue another job, but by the state, under threat of jail time.

 

The pharmacies were just the tip of the iceberg, folks. If society is going to start dictating what people do, and people are going to accept that because those people are in specific professions, I really worry about freedom in this country. But as I say, these matters of choice are also important, so some kind of resolution is definitely called for.

 

But ignoring the doctor's and pharmacist's freedoms is just state-sponsored discrimination.

 

This thread is offensive to my religion, and I hereby demand that you stop discussing it.

 

More religiously inspired stupidity. How bad must this world get before people realize it's a bunch of ludicrous nonsense and discard it like they did Thor and Zeus?

 

God told me he didn't want me to fill your prescription for birth control, but for some reason he allowed the doctor to prescribe it, the pharmaceutical companies to design it, and you to want it... But MY god is the most important, so nanner nanner boo boo.

 

Oh yeah, and he wants me to discriminate against your gayness even though "he" made you gay.

 

 

Morons.

 

I agree with this sentiment, btw. I just think it's irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't matter WHY the doctor doesn't want to do it. Their freedom-of-religion argument was bunk, IMO.

 

That's what we do in a free society. We protect people's right to be stupid. Normally we don't protect it at the expense of others, but we also don't order free people to perform a service for other people.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[iNow]

But forcing the doctors and pharmacists to do something they don't want to do, under threat of legal action, is a serious breach of their basic civil liberties.

 

<...>

 

Doesn't matter WHY the doctor doesn't want to do it. Their freedom-of-religion argument was bunk, IMO.

 

That's what we do in a free society. We protect people's right to be stupid. Normally we don't protect it at the expense of others, but we also don't order free people to perform a service for other people.

 

They shouldn't have become a doctor or pharmacist, then. We're not saying they can't practice their religion, we're saying they can't let their religion impinge on their ability to do the job. If they have some personal and deep seated reason to avoid providing the care required of them, that's fine, but they should have chosen another profession if that's the case.

 

 

Reminds me all too much of the story last year about Muslims working at Target as cashiers who refused to scan customers bacon. It comes with the job. If that's a problem for your belief system, then it's time for a different job or a different set of beliefs.

[doG]

I don't want to get into slippery slopes, but we can draw analogies with other jobs. How about a scientist being told what to research, "or else"?

 

How about a licensed cab driver at an airport refusing to carry a blind passenger because of their service dog or because the passenger is carrying alcohol? What if the cabbie was offended by all male passengers without beards? Where does the slippery slope begin and end? To what extent does a business license require you to provide fair, non-discriminatory services to the public at large?

[Pangloss]

Reminds me all too much of the story last year about Muslims working at Target as cashiers who refused to scan customers bacon. It comes with the job. If that's a problem for your belief system, then it's time for a different job or a different set of beliefs.

 

Cute, but those Target employees could find work elsewhere and still remain in the same profession. They weren't breaking the law.

 

They shouldn't have become a doctor or pharmacist, then. We're not saying they can't practice their religion, we're saying they can't let their religion impinge on their ability to do the job. If they have some personal and deep seated reason to avoid providing the care required of them, that's fine, but they should have chosen another profession if that's the case.

 

The question in my mind is, why is it required of them?

 

At the very least I think we have to recognize the vast difference between emergency medical care and optional, elective procedures. We lump everything under the emotional aegis of "care", but in a case like this we're actually talking about two offsetting personal choices.

[Sayonara]

The parallel with the pharmacies is important. I support freedom of choice by patients, and I completely agree with the suggestions that these options are important. I'm not putting her behind the doctor or ostracizing her instead of the doctor (the straw man from Sayo's post).

Actually, for that to be a strawman, I'd have to be claiming it was your argument. Clearly I did no such thing; what I did was make a comment about the tone of your post, which I think is borne out by... well... the tone of your post.

 

My argument was actually in the rest of my post, which you seem to have chosen not to acknowledge.

 

What I'm saying is that the doctor has a legitimate freedom as well, and we have to recognize it because we purport to be a free society. Ignoring it is wrong.

 

This order requires him to physically do something, with his very hands, that is anathema to him. He's gone through years of training and personal effort, and he hasn't been rewarded by society for that or given special privileges of any kind -- he WORKS for a living, remember? He's no king sitting in a high castle. He's a working joe who just may make a little more than you (and has the debt to prove it).

Yes, and his work includes doing things he doesn't necessarily like.

 

However, this law has come about because it is invalid to put "insemination of a lesbian" and "insemination of a straight woman" into separate boxes. In medical terms they are both simply the procedure of "insemination", and the doctor introducing the spurious discriminatory element of the patient's sexual preference is not an attribute, specification, or requirement of the procedure.

 

It's something personal and unwarranted that he is tacking on to the service which he provides, and it conflicts with the aims of the service itself.

 

I agree that personal choice can't be allowed to create a situation where services aren't available due to nobody wanting to provide them in an area. But forcing the doctors and pharmacists to do something they don't want to do, under threat of legal action, is a serious breach of their basic civil liberties.

Really? So where do you stand on police officers who don't particularly want to conduct investigations on behalf of people who are known to them as being more on the supply side of crime? Do you think they should have the option to just walk away as well?

 

Bear in mind that legally they can't even quit. It's a law, they can't just throw down the ol' scalpel and give up being a doctor over this. They have to provide this service, or go to jail.

Isn't that just part of what being a professional is all about? Doing your job even though you might not like it? And being realistic, jail is only going to be the punishment for people who are outrageously flaunting the law, not everyone who falls slightly foul of it.

 

I don't want to get into slippery slopes, but we can draw analogies with other jobs. How about a scientist being told what to research, "or else"? And not by his employer, which would allow him to quit and pursue another job, but by the state, under threat of jail time.

Civil liberties... hah. Let's imagine an armed force or a government agency or an emergency service in which each individual just decides whether or not they want to do their job on a day to day basis according to some arbitrary belief that they personally hold.

 

But ignoring the doctor's and pharmacist's freedoms is just state-sponsored discrimination.

That is the point though: the legislation is not "ignoring" the doctors' and pharmacists' rights to refuse service because of their own beliefs. It is saying that they do not have that right. Which is exactly how critical professional services like medicine SHOULD be provided.

 

Personally, I'd like to see how you would have responded to that article if the word "lesbian" was replaced by "black", and the words "religious objection" were replaced by "flaming racism".

Edited August 19, 2008 by Sayonara³

[iNow]

Cute, but those Target employees could find work elsewhere and still remain in the same profession.

I was simply saying what it reminds me of, not stating that this was the same exact thing. However, the doctors and pharmacists can, in fact, go get another job. However, if they wish to continue in the same profession, then they must abide by the laws regulating that profession. Rather simple really.

 

They don't have a right not to be offended. The people seeking care, however, do have a right to be treated equally and without arbitrarily set obstacles due to personal belief in the veracity of some ridiculous fairy tale.

 

 

Also, to Sayonara's illustrative question above about whether or not police should be able to choose not to help someone who is a known criminal... A more accurate analogy/question would be asking if the police should be able to choose not to help a woman being beaten by her husband because their religion teaches them that women are property of men and subject to their authority.

 

It's so absolutely ridiculous in so many ways that I can hardly believe there are people still in this day and age arguing that some choice premised on a religious belief system should be allowed. What other exceptions for mythology should we make?

Edited August 19, 2008 by iNow

[Pangloss]

Actually, for that to be a strawman, I'd have to be claiming it was your argument. Clearly I did no such thing; what I did was make a comment about the tone of your post, which I think is borne out by... well... the tone of your post.

 

My argument was actually in the rest of my post, which you seem to have chosen not to acknowledge.

 

That's not true, I'm addressing your points directly. Here's the straw man:

 

Yes, instead of characterising doctors as being evil gay-haters, let's characterise lesbians as being unreasonable gold-diggers.

 

I did no such thing, and I responded to that accusation specifically in post #9.

 

I did, however, see your point that the tone of my post sounded more like a provocative rant than a regular conversation-starter. I could have phrased it differently, and I acknowledge the point now. It's a fine line sometimes between starting a friendly conversation and drumming up some interest when things are a little slow, and perhaps I went a bit too far to one side.

 

The seriousness of some of the above replies (Sisyphus, john5746, etc) suggests that I have started a legitimate discussion. So I think it merits continuance on that basis. We can change the subject line if you think it's too provocative.

 

Really? So where do you stand on police officers who don't particularly want to conduct investigations on behalf of people who are known to them as being more on the supply side of crime? Do you think they should have the option to just walk away as well?

 

This strikes me as falling more under the concept of emergency. I had no objection to doctors being forced to provide emergency or necessary medical care.

 

A more apt comparison: Police officers don't investigate civil matters.

 

Civil liberties... hah. Let's imagine an armed force or a government agency or an emergency service in which each individual just decides whether or not they want to do their job on a day to day basis according to some arbitrary belief that they personally hold.

 

We DO allow armed forces to elect not to follow their orders -- they're called conscientious objectors, and their reasons for objection are matters of personal choice.

 

We do that because we don't want people who object to the reasons to actually be forced to perform the service. After all, their performance might suffer and fail to get the job done.

 

Why can't we extend the same courtesy to doctors and pharmacists? Seems reasonable to me.

 

That is the point though: the legislation is not "ignoring" the doctors' and pharmacists' rights to refuse service because of their own beliefs. It is saying that they do not have that right. Which is exactly how critical professional services like medicine SHOULD be provided.

 

But again, this is not "critical". There's nothing "critical" about this. You're falling for those buzzwords and ignoring what this is really about.

 

But you're absolutely right in pointing out that doctors are being denied a right. That's exactly what's happening.

 

Personally, I'd like to see how you would have responded to that article if the word "lesbian" was replaced by "black", and the words "religious objection" were replaced by "flaming racism".

 

I'd say the same thing. You can't legislate morality. Winning hearts and minds is not something you can do at the point of a gun.

 

 

 

Now let's all watch iNow use the "care" buzzword to demonize the doctors too:

 

The people seeking care[/b'], however, do have a right to be treated equally and without arbitrary obstacles due to personal belief.

 

Oh my, they're seeking care, therefore they're being victimized if they're denied it. Yeesh.

[iNow]

Now let's all watch iNow use the "care" buzzword to demonize the doctors too:

 

Oh my, they're seeking care, therefore they're being victimized if they're denied it. Yeesh.

Don't be a jerk.

 

It's not like these people seeking "legitimate scientific/medical assistance" can just go anywhere. If their doctors or pharmacists refuse it to them, then the doctor or pharmacist is at fault for failing to perform the duties of their position.

[Sayonara]

I did, however, see your point that the tone of my post sounded more like a provocative rant than a regular conversation-starter. I could have phrased it differently, and I acknowledge the point now. It's a fine line sometimes between starting a friendly conversation and drumming up some interest when things are a little slow, and perhaps I went a bit too far to one side.

That was, in fact, the thrust of my comment, and I'm sorry you interpreted it as some kind of argument.

 

The seriousness of some of the above replies (Sisyphus, john5746, etc) suggests that I have started a legitimate discussion. So I think it merits continuance on that basis. We can change the subject line if you think it's too provocative.

To be fair, I have not at any point suggested that the topic does not merit serious discussion. I will leave it to you to change the subject line as you see fit.

 

This strikes me as falling more under the concept of emergency. I had no objection to doctors being forced to provide emergency or necessary medical care.

I think that if we go in this direction, we are simply exchanging one grey area for another. Specifically, we are pushing the "who decides which beliefs provide a valid objection?" grey area aside in favour of the "which procedures are emergencies and which are not?" grey area. Although I can see the common sense aspect of the exchange.

 

A more apt comparison: Police officers don't investigate civil matters.

Well, that's not really true. Neighbour disputes are a good example.

 

If you wish to keep this a USA-only discussion then I can't really comment on specific duties (of which investigation is simply one example), but I don't for one second believe police officers never provide a service to the public in America.

 

 

We DO allow armed forces to elect not to follow their orders -- they're called conscientious objectors, and their reasons for objection are matters of personal choice.

Yes, but do the American armed forces just say "oh, okay" every single time someone cites personal belief as a reason for not following lawful orders? No, of course they don't. Only under the sort of circumstances which, in the civilian analogue, would be the basis of defence in the court case of (for example) the doctor from that article.

 

Why can't we extend the same courtesy to doctors and pharmacists? Seems reasonable to me.

This is something I was considering while going to the shops to purchase pie, and I will comment on it when I have eaten pie.

 

But again, this is not "critical". There's nothing "critical" about this. You're falling for those buzzwords and ignoring what this is really about.

You misunderstand why I used that word. I do not mean to say that an elective procedure is "critical"; I mean to say that the delivery of medical services is a critical element of a society that functions well. Deregulating service delivery is a sure-fire way to create inequity.

 

But you're absolutely right in pointing out that doctors are being denied a right. That's exactly what's happening.

I differentiate between a right being denied and a right not existing. But I acknowledge this is a difficult moral issue rather than being related directly to the legislative topic of the thread.

 

I'd say the same thing. You can't legislate morality. Winning hearts and minds is not something you can do at the point of a gun.

The legislation is not there to dictate morality, it is there to protect service users from being subjected to any given practitioner's personal belief system.

 

I really don't see how you can value the doctor's "freedom to choose" above the customer's right to not have his values imposed on them. The customer has after all come for insemination, not indoctrination. Be mindful also that the doctor is not being denied a choice; he has made his choice already, and that's WHY this problem exists.

 

 

Oh yes, they're seeking care, therefore they're being victimized if they're denied it. Yeesh.

Change it to "The people seeking access to a service, however, do have a right to be treated equally and without arbitrary obstacles due to personal belief".

 

I don't think it loses any of its resonance.

[Pangloss]

It's not like these people seeking "legitimate scientific/medical assistance" can just go anywhere.

 

On the contrary, as stated in the OP, the woman had alternatives.

 

 

To be fair, I have not at any point suggested that the topic does not merit serious discussion. I will leave it to you to change the subject line as you see fit.

 

Thanks, it does sound like a good idea, so I'll go ahead and do it. I did think your point about tone was reasonable.

 

 

I think that if we go in this direction, we are simply exchanging one grey area for another. Specifically, we are pushing the "who decides which beliefs provide a valid objection?" grey area aside in favour of the "which procedures are emergencies and which are not?" grey area. Although I can see the common sense aspect of the exchange.

 

That does strike me as a legitimate concern.

 

 

Well, that's not really true. Neighbour disputes are a good example.

 

If you wish to keep this a USA-only discussion then I can't really comment on specific duties (of which investigation is simply one example), but I don't for one second believe police officers never provide a service to the public in America.

 

I guess that's true enough, and they have no say in the matter -- their crusty ol' captain says "go there and do this", and if they object, they're gone. True enough.

 

I guess I would raise the point here that they're civil servants, and doctors are not. I realize that may be different in the UK, and I wonder if that may underly part of the UK perspective here, i.e. suggesting to UK readers that doctors have less rights in this area because they're somewhat empowered by, and protected by, the state. That's not really the case in the US and in fact doctors generally have the right of refusal of any patient. The one exception might be emergencies, which I'm not even sure is a legal matter. Doctors have licenses, and those licenses have requirements, on pain of losing the license, but it's a different underlying premise with a different understanding of their role in society.

 

I think that goes directly to this next point as well:

 

Yes, but do the American armed forces just say "oh, okay" every single time someone cites personal belief as a reason for not following lawful orders? No, of course they don't. Only under the sort of circumstances which, in the civilian analogue, would be the basis of defence in the court case of (for example) the doctor from that article.

 

Right, and here I would raise the same point as above, that as civil servants they lose some of their civil liberties out of necessity because of the power of their authority, as an additional check or balance.

 

But perhaps I'm wrong in not seeing doctors this way in our society; maybe someone can take up the point.

 

I really don't see how you can value the doctor's "freedom to choose" above the customer's right to not have his values imposed on them. The customer has after all come for insemination, not indoctrination. Be mindful also that the doctor is not being denied a choice; he has made his choice already, and that's WHY this problem exists.

 

I don't, I just see the doctors as having a valid concern, and I think (think being an operative word at this point) that they're on roughly equal footing with the patients of this type (women seeking in-vitro fertilization).

 

Also, there's no indoctrination being accused here. Just refusal of care, which I don't think constitutes indoctrination. He didn't try to convince her of anything, unless I just missed that in the article.

 

---

line[/hr]

Here's a question for the group:

 

Why do we let obstetricians off the hook? Shouldn't they be required to perform abortions?

Edited August 19, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[Sayonara]

Mmm, pie.

 

I guess I would raise the point here that they're civil servants, and doctors are not. I realize that may be different in the UK, and I wonder if that may underly part of the UK perspective here, i.e. suggesting to UK readers that doctors have less rights in this area because they're somewhat empowered by, and protected by, the state.

In the UK it is kind of confusing, because you have the National Health Service which is centrally funded and controlled, but which is administered and run as a business, and contracted out quite a lot if you scrutinise it closely enough. UK doctors are answerable to the General Medical Council wherever they go astray (ignoring the consequences of criminal offences, that is. In that case they are of course answerable to the courts).

 

Historically though Brits have been experts at complaining about service levels so that sort of balances the confusion.

 

That's not really the case in the US and in fact doctors generally have the right of refusal of any patient.

The UK system is a sort of self-correcting one, in that the only people you would probably want to refuse service (which mostly only happens for safety reasons afaik) are the sort who will refuse treatment anyway and 'escape', e.g. violent drunks.

 

The one exception might be emergencies, which I'm not even sure is a legal matter. Doctors have licenses, and those licenses have requirements, on pain of losing the license, but it's a different underlying premise with a different understanding of their role in society.

 

I think that goes directly to this next point as well:

 

Right, and here I would raise the same point as above, that as civil servants they lose some of their civil liberties out of necessity because of the power of their authority, as an additional check or balance.

 

But perhaps I'm wrong in not seeing doctors this way in our society; maybe someone can take up the point.

Perhaps what the legislation is trying to promote is a social model whereby you are not simply a civil servant because you are administered by the state, but that providing any kind of regulated service to society makes the practitioner a kind of "civil servant" by default.

 

Doctors who were licensed (in the US) or registered (in the UK) when the legislation came in will of course have a teething period which may be uncomfortable to them, depending on their views and their patients. This is unfortunate for them but it's no different to any of the concessions, compromises, or sacrifices that any other sector of society has learnt to work around with other changes in legislation that were intended to benefit everyone as a whole. For those expecting to enter the medical profession, it's just one more aspect for them to mull over when they are considering what career path will suit them.

 

Provision of an equitable service works on many levels (individuals, local working practises, corporate approaches, industry regulations, and legislation). But it all starts with the individuals themselves, who may already understand that it is unfair and unprofessional to provide different levels of service to different kinds of people.

 

I find the idea of doctors making personally-subscribed religious scripture a part of their professional practise to be a disturbing one, and if it takes legislation to make the point that it's not really on at all, then good. Crack on! In this particular example, it's not as if the woman asked the staff to become unmarried lesbian mothers themselves. She simply asked to be artificially inseminated.

 

You have to question the conviction behind the refusals. Do the staff treat unmarried mothers with that procedure? Do they not think that they may be chastened in heaven for not stoning enough homosexuals to death? The provisions of scripture are not a sound basis for prescribing medical service levels, elective procedure or not.

 

I don't, I just see the doctors as having a valid concern, and I think (think being an operative word at this point) that they're on roughly equal footing with the patients of this type (women seeking in-vitro fertilization).

Well, yes, I agree the doctors have a valid concern. Those who are affected have been somewhat backed into a corner by the law. But they are only in this position because of beliefs that they hold, as opposed to the people they are (it's easier to admit that god doesn't want single parents to go to hell than it is to stop being a lesbian).

 

Also, they do have a raft of options available to them for coping, such as reconsidering those specific beliefs which lead to the dilemma, how they integrate those beliefs into their working practises, whether or not they should even be doing that, and so on. The lesbian who wants to bear a child is not so fortunate, and she is not responsible for the doctor's dilemma.

 

A middle ground might be a system whereby doctors maintain a list of local alternatives to whom the patient can be referred to where there is a conflict of interests. It should be reasonably straightforward for a doctor to predict the kind of conflicts which might come up in their line of work, and locate colleagues nearby who won't have the same problems. I know this did actually happen in the quoted article, and the woman still sued, but that's litigious societies for you. It should have been "refer", not "refuse.... but also refer".

 

 

Incidentally, there was a similar outcry from Catholic adoption agencies when the Equality Act was introduced to the UK.

 

In a nutshell, the legislation prohibited service provision from being withheld on the basis of discrimination, and the Catholic adoption agencies made the claim that they would have to close if refusing to allow gay couples to adopt meant that an agency was in breach of the law (they completely ignored the possibility of simply asking prospective adoptive gay couples if they wouldn't mind going to another agency, perhaps one from this list?).

 

After a long debate which Tony Blair milked and milked for all the crowd-pleasing he could, parliament ruled against the agencies.

 

This quote very aptly summarises the principle I have been trying to get across:

 

Such an exemption [to the Equality Act] would provide a protection not for the holding of a religious belief but for the manifestation of that belief.

 

"Where such manifestation of a belief conflicts with the right of gay people not to be discriminated against in their access to services as important as adoption services, it is in our view necessary and justifiable to limit the right to manifest the belief.

 

Here's a question for the group:

 

Why do we let obstetricians off the hook? Shouldn't they be required to perform abortions?

 

Part of me wants this to be a new thread and part of me shouts "no, it's the same argument!"

[bascule]

I see. So this wasn't about emergency care, it was about an elective procedure, other doctors were available, and what we're really saying here is that the doctor's feelings are less important than this woman's feelings, because she is a lesbian, and they are doctors.

 

I think the question is: would they offer the same service to straight patients but refuse it to lesbians?

 

If so, I really have little sympathy for the doctors. They're selectively providing care based on a patient's sexual orientation.

[CDarwin]

Right, this law doesn't proscribe that all doctors everywhere have to perform artificial inseminations on demand to whoever does it? If you don't want to have to inseminate lesbians, don't set up to perform inseminations. Am I missing something?

[swansont]

The doctor's mistake was telling the patient why he/she wouldn't treat her. Lie, and say you aren't taking on new patients, or something similar. But California has anti-discrimination laws that cover this situation. If you don't like it, vote with your feet, or stop performing the service altogether.

 

 

Part of me wants this to be a new thread and part of me shouts "no, it's the same argument!"

 

I think it's a different argument. A doctor specializes and doesn't do certain procedures. Do we make an orthopedist who specializes in shoulder injuries treat your broken toe? If you don't do abortions, you don't do abortions. It would be the same argument if the doctor only performed abortions on lesbians.

 

Right, this law doesn't proscribe that all doctors everywhere have to perform artificial inseminations on demand to whoever does it? If you don't want to have to inseminate lesbians, don't set up to perform inseminations. Am I missing something?

 

No, I don't think you are.

[doG]

But perhaps I'm wrong in not seeing doctors this way in our society; maybe someone can take up the point.

 

I don't think that's the point at all because doctor are not civil servants in the U.S. The point is that the doctor's office has a business license like the other businesses in the community. Because of the state law regarding discrimination businesses cannot not refuse service to people just because they fit in a group like blacks, gays, Hispanics, etc.. If this doctor offers insemination to single women then he cannot just select some arbitrary reason to refuse service to a whole set of women in the group like women that re black, Hispanic or gay. Single women are single women regardless of their sexual orientation. Would it be okay if the restaurant next door with the same business license he has asked incoming customers if they are gay or not?

[iNow]

On the contrary, as stated in the OP, the woman had alternatives.

 

One anecodotal example that one person impacted by the physician/pharmacists refusal to treat had other options doesn't mean everyone will. In many areas, there is just one doctor or just one pharmacist, hence the importance of regulations that apply everywhere and don't allow such dumbass refusals based on personal faith (the key words there are "personal" and "dumbass").

[ParanoiA]

Why not just qualify doctors to their jobs? Let's practice a little freedom here, shall we?

 

I don't see how one can arrogantly dismiss a livelihood of medicine to another person over a difference of moral code and conduct. Unacceptable in a civilized, 21st century free society. Deny the public the benefit of life and health provided by the skills of a person who has an odd belief quirk that effects a fraction of a percentage of their potential career interest in the first place?

 

As far fetched as it may sound, if there's a position somewhere in the hospital that doesn't need someone to inseminate lezbians, he can do it.

 

Seems to me this is about contracts and that ought to settle it. If you take a job and claim to do x, y and z, then you have to or be fired. For critical obligations, there's even law. But I don't agree with any notions of forcing businesses and employees to perform services against their will, for whatever petulant, meaningless reason they desire. If I want to open a fertilization clinic named "ParanoiA's Exclusive Black and Hetro Reproduction Induction Express" and refuse to inseminate anyone who isn't black and heterosexual - hell, I'll throw in christian - then I ought to be able to do it, and refuse service to anyone else.

 

That's liberty. Other people died for it, all we've got to do is accept it.