Dangers of the conservative right's "religious freedom" mantra v. LGBT rights.

Stnd w Standing Rock

Wichita, Kansas

Feb 20, 2015 @ 03:45:05

"A Michigan pediatrician refused to work with the baby of a same-sex couple, citing her anti-gay religious beliefs. It's another case that highlights the potential dangers of conservative media's campaign to champion "religious freedom" in the face of anti-gay discrimination."

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/19/doctor-refuses-to-care-for-gay-couples-baby-is/202580

0

Eaglebauer

Moderator
Deleted

Saint Louis, Missouri

#2

Feb 20, 2015 @ 04:02:50

While I don't agree with the doctor's views, I don't see what the danger is. The article says when the couple arrived with their child they were not denied service, they simply saw a different doctor at the same time their appointment with the first doctor was for. I don't see what actual danger there was.

If it was a matter of life and death and the doctor refused, I would have issue with that absolutely.

0

shinobinoz

Stnd w Standing Rock

Wichita, Kansas

#3

Feb 20, 2015 @ 04:34:52

@Eaglebauer Said

While I don't agree with the doctor's views, I don't see what the danger is. The article says when the couple arrived with their child they were not denied service, they simply saw a different doctor at the same time their appointment with the first doctor was for. I don't see what actual danger there was.

If it was a matter of life and death and the doctor refused, I would have issue with that absolutely.

The danger is when this will occur (and it WILL) in a possible myriad of locations that only has one provider.

0

Eaglebauer

Moderator
Deleted

Saint Louis, Missouri

#4

Feb 20, 2015 @ 13:23:23

@shinobinoz Said

The danger is when this will occur (and it WILL) in a possible myriad of locations that only has one provider.

If there is literally only one provider in an area, I would hope the doctor's Hippocratic oath would take precedence over political or religious beliefs. In the case listed in the article though the child was not placed in any danger and didn't suffer. That is my only point, and as I said before, if it's a matter of life and death or if failing to treat would cause harm or damage to an individual it becomes a different issue entirely.

And as much as I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, in areas with one provider, is it not possible to drive to a doctor in another area? My kid's pediatrician used to be 25 miles away because he was the doctor we thought was a best fit for our children although there were several doctors who were closer. The question then arises, if I was a gay man with a partner and we had a child, would I want a doctor who has those beliefs and who would see my child as existing in an immoral family to have anything to do with my child's health care? That doctor certainly would not be the best fit.

Again, I'm not agreeing with the doctor's views but I think these are important things to consider.

0

Edited: February 20, 2015 @ 13:25

chaski

Stalker

Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,

#5

Feb 20, 2015 @ 13:38:14

Dr. Vesna Roi, who "violate the rules of the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics", is a pathetic ass-tard. She did wave the standard unchristian like banner for her religion. The bible teaches us that the children should be punished for the parent down to the 3 or 4th generation, so Dr. Roi was just living her beliefs.

If Dr Roi was my doctor, I would take my family's medical concerns elsewhere..

The lesbian couple and their child are better without her.

The good news is that the baby's condition was apparently not a life threatening emergency.

1

Edited: February 20, 2015 @ 13:41

GreenAppleKing

Deleted

, United States (general)

#6

Feb 20, 2015 @ 14:48:05

@Eaglebauer Said

While I don't agree with the doctor's views, I don't see what the danger is. The article says when the couple arrived with their child they were not denied service, they simply saw a different doctor at the same time their appointment with the first doctor was for. I don't see what actual danger there was.

If it was a matter of life and death and the doctor refused, I would have issue with that absolutely.

The answer is capitalism.

Allow the market to decide.

Customers should pay for the medicine they want from the medical provider they like.

0

Hitting40

The middle of nowhere, United

#7

Feb 20, 2015 @ 17:17:48

It's completely unprofessional and were i can't speak for other countries, here in the U.K we are bound to the NMC code (for nurses and midwives) and GMC code of conduct (for Doctors). This states patients should be treated in a non-judgemental manner, with no regard for ones own personal beliefs. We are asked at the interview for training if we can disregard our own personal beliefs whilst in the role. We were even given scenario's with regard to paedophiles, abortion, criminals etc all things that can be controversial subjects.

If one doesn't abide by the code, your registration to practice is in jeopardy.
Cases are brought up before a fitness to practice board.

It is made perfectly clear from the onset of training , that if you can't leave your personal beliefs at the door before you start each day, you shouldn't be in that profession.

1

PTF

Banned

Indiana,

#8

Feb 20, 2015 @ 23:36:17

You must of missed my comments posted a few days ago about the Washington State florist.
I don't see a problem with someone's beliefs...which they are entitled.
Potential dangers ?
A potential is getting on a elevator that says "out of order".
A potential is David Banner's "Evil Knievel" or Hozier's "Take Me To Church."
We're becoming a society of nitpickers where there are better issues to deal with...like this dude and his regime.

0

PTF

Banned

Indiana,

#9

Feb 20, 2015 @ 23:37:15

@PTF Said

You must of missed my comments posted a few days ago about the Washington State florist.
I don't see a problem with someone's beliefs...which they are entitled.
Potential dangers ?
A potential is getting on a elevator that says "out of order".
A potential is David Banner's "Evil Knievel" or Hozier's "Take Me To Church."
We're becoming a society of nitpickers where there are better issues to deal with...like this dude and his regime.

lol,I'm walking...

0

shinobinoz

Stnd w Standing Rock

Wichita, Kansas

#10

Feb 21, 2015 @ 03:56:29

@Eaglebauer Said

If there is literally only one provider in an area, I would hope the doctor's Hippocratic oath would take precedence over political or religious beliefs. In the case listed in the article though the child was not placed in any danger and didn't suffer. That is my only point, and as I said before, if it's a matter of life and death or if failing to treat would cause harm or damage to an individual it becomes a different issue entirely.

And as much as I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, in areas with one provider, is it not possible to drive to a doctor in another area? My kid's pediatrician used to be 25 miles away because he was the doctor we thought was a best fit for our children although there were several doctors who were closer. The question then arises, if I was a gay man with a partner and we had a child, would I want a doctor who has those beliefs and who would see my child as existing in an immoral family to have anything to do with my child's health care? That doctor certainly would not be the best fit.

Again, I'm not agreeing with the doctor's views but I think these are important things to consider.

I understand- but I find that a slippery slope argument. What else can we name as fair game?
I don't like blonds ergo I won't treat any blonds?
Insert your favorite group you won't treat?????

0

shinobinoz

Stnd w Standing Rock

Wichita, Kansas

#11

Feb 21, 2015 @ 03:57:36

@GreenAppleKing Said

The answer is capitalism.

Allow the market to decide.

Customers should pay for the medicine they want from the medical provider they like.

Complete & utter BS that.

0

shinobinoz

Stnd w Standing Rock

Wichita, Kansas

#12

Feb 21, 2015 @ 03:58:23

@Hitting40 Said

It's completely unprofessional and were i can't speak for other countries, here in the U.K we are bound to the NMC code (for nurses and midwives) and GMC code of conduct (for Doctors). This states patients should be treated in a non-judgemental manner, with no regard for ones own personal beliefs. We are asked at the interview for training if we can disregard our own personal beliefs whilst in the role. We were even given scenario's with regard to paedophiles, abortion, criminals etc all things that can be controversial subjects.

If one doesn't abide by the code, your registration to practice is in jeopardy.
Cases are brought up before a fitness to practice board.

It is made perfectly clear from the onset of training , that if you can't leave your personal beliefs at the door before you start each day, you shouldn't be in that profession.

Nice, very nice!

1

shinobinoz

Stnd w Standing Rock

Wichita, Kansas

#13

Feb 21, 2015 @ 04:00:00

@PTF Said

lol,I'm walking...

We know. Lobbing grenades like candy & turning tail is ur MO

0

Eaglebauer

Moderator
Deleted

Saint Louis, Missouri

#14

Feb 21, 2015 @ 11:47:13

@shinobinoz Said

I understand- but I find that a slippery slope argument. What else can we name as fair game?
I don't like blonds ergo I won't treat any blonds?
Insert your favorite group you won't treat?????

Actually, to be fair, what you're saying here is a slippery slope argument. It's very similar to people who are against gay marriage saying things like "if we let gays marry, sooner or later people will be marrying dogs."

I see your point, honestly I do, but do you really see people taking it to that length in the future?

I want to be clear that all I'm doing here is trying to look at this from all sides.

And I like that you and I are kind of setting an example by keeping this civil.

0

Edited: February 21, 2015 @ 11:48

bobbimay

Tucson, Arizona

#15

Feb 21, 2015 @ 15:23:48

@shinobinoz Said

"A Michigan pediatrician refused to work with the baby of a same-sex couple, citing her anti-gay religious beliefs. It's another case that highlights the potential dangers of conservative media's campaign to champion "religious freedom" in the face of anti-gay discrimination."

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/19/doctor-refuses-to-care-for-gay-couples-baby-is/202580

How is this any different then when a non native person walking on to one of our reservation and into the clinic and demanding to be seen by one of our healers or sharman in which they will be denied...

They both may use different words but the message is the same both denied because of the content of their chromosomes...

and both Doctors can and will claim religious beliefs the justify their actions.

1

Similar Topics
	Forum	Topic	Last Post	Replies	Views
	Religion & Philosophy	The "anti-religious"	Fri Oct 12, 2007 @ 20:37	282	10230
	Religion	This reflects my "religious" beliefs.	Wed Aug 11, 2010 @ 19:24	30	3417
	News & Current Events	"God Loves Uganda" Director- "losing LGBT fight around the globe"	Sat Nov 26, 2022 @ 14:11	15	5090
	US Elections	"War", "Military", "Victory", "Fight"! O	Fri Jul 24, 2020 @ 23:24	77	25252
	Homosexuality	How do you actually "make your move"? (Gay, bi, straight people)	Wed May 06, 2015 @ 10:58	51	18328

News & Current Events

Dangers of the conservative right's "religious freedom" mantra v. LGBT rights.