Michigan Pediatrician Refuses to Treat Lesbian Couple's Baby

[Lawgiver]

There is no debating when you, as a so called rational person practicing evidence based medicine, base your actions on what the flying spaghetti monster, God, tells you to do.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jdh71]

Your entire argument rests on the premise that bc the child was not born yet when parents were interviewing, there was no physician-patient relationship there, when u don't know if the interview happened before or after the daughter's birth.

I know u like to argue and tweak the scenario to fit your argument, but u should stick with what happened here.

Because that is the only pertinent detail here. There was no patient until there was.

The article I read said the interview occurred before the birth. Most parents pick a pediatrician before birth. I know I did.

I haven't tweaked anything. I've merely been telling you repeatedly how you are wrong.

And maybe you should type out "you". You don't have to, of course, but I think it would help elevate the perceived intelligence level of your responses.

 

[jakeislove]

You know, I actually debated whether or not to even include that. I don't condone the behavior, obviously, but neither am I going to really do anything more about it. I don't think its an ethical violation, legal violation, or anything like that. I wouldn't have done it, and I think it was mean to do it (though I don't think it was mean-spirited), but that's about it.

It sucks that the obligation to placate idiots even exists..... not that there's anything wrong with it.

 

[oldanddone]

I think the 'dick move' was the bait-and-switch, not being timely, and compromising care due to untimeliness . the care was initiated by trying to evaluate many possible candidates and select the best one, so to comromise that process was to compromise care. I'm not sure the 'dick move' was a comment on excluding (how the thought turned into action) based on religious conviction/approach to homosexuality (the thought)

 

[oldanddone]

Because that is the only pertinent detail here. There was no patient until there was.

The article I read said the interview occurred before the birth. Most parents pick a pediatrician before birth. I know I did.

I haven't tweaked anything. I've merely been telling you repeatedly how you are wrong.

And maybe you should type out "you". You don't have to, of course, but I think it would help elevate the perceived intelligence level of your responses.

i'm wondering whether this point about initiation of patient-doctor relationship is being made based on relevance to the legal context or in the medical ethics context or patient-centred medicine context...?? what's the reason for the determination?

edit: and if it is for legal context...do we actually know what the case law is regarding pediatrics and other patients who have decision makers?

 

[charmiedermie]

Because that is the only pertinent detail here. There was no patient until there was.

The article I read said the interview occurred before the birth. Most parents pick a pediatrician before birth. I know I did.

I haven't tweaked anything. I've merely been telling you repeatedly how you are wrong.

And maybe you should type out "you". You don't have to, of course, but I think it would help elevate the perceived intelligence level of your responses.

Feel free to link to the article that said the interview occurred before birth. It doesn't matter what most parents do.

Great job though on the spelling critique on a forum to deflect from the actual argument, just for your perception. I could say the same for your use of an emoticon. Feel free to get the last word since u seem to want it so badly in every debate or argument.

 

[oldanddone]

You know, I actually debated whether or not to even include that. I don't condone the behavior, obviously, but neither am I going to really do anything more about it. I don't think its an ethical violation, legal violation, or anything like that. I wouldn't have done it, and I think it was mean to do it (though I don't think it was mean-spirited), but that's about it.

oh ok... i first read the 'dick move' as being related to the last-minute untimeliness. but just to get a more accurate sense of what you're saying, you were referring more to the refusal to see them based on sexuality? and you're not sure how much of a dick move that was - i.e. not condoning the behaviour, but also wondering whether it would truly be a violation.

 

[jdh71]

Feel free to link to the article that said the interview occurred before birth. It doesn't matter what most parents do.

Great job though on the spelling critique on a forum to deflect from the actual argument, just for your perception. I could say the same for your use of an emoticon. Feel free to get the last word since u seem to want it so badly in every debate or argument.

I do like the last word. But go ahead and bring that up to deflect from the fact that I've refuted every argument you've tried to make. Heh. (This is fun)

Though to be fair, my spelling critique occurred after I actually responded to your point. It was just a helpful protip from your uncle jdh.

Link. As requested.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/28142401/doctor-refuses-treatment-of-same-sex-couples-baby

 

[charmiedermie]

i'm wondering whether this point about initiation of patient-doctor relationship is being made based on relevance to the legal context or in the medical ethics context or patient-centred medicine context...?? what's the reason for the determination?

edit: and if it is for legal context...do we actually know what the case law is regarding pediatrics and other patients who have decision makers?

@oldanddone, I think we're all more talking in a medical professionalism/medical ethics context. What this pediatrician did is not illegal which is clear. Apparently, even though there are prenatal visits with the pediatrician, there is no patient.

The American Academy of Pediatrics might have a position statement on turning down a family bc of religious views or views on homosexuality.

 

[jdh71]

i'm wondering whether this point about initiation of patient-doctor relationship is being made based on relevance to the legal context or in the medical ethics context or patient-centred medicine context...?? what's the reason for the determination?

edit: and if it is for legal context...do we actually know what the case law is regarding pediatrics and other patients who have decision makers?

I think the point regarding the link is being made in this case and in this thread because someone is trying to make the case that a relationship was "severed".

My point was you actually have to have met with a patient to have a relationship that can severed.

From there I think it's all been a lot contortion to not have to look wrong on the internet.

That my from the hip take on it though.

 

[oldanddone]

hmmm...i've been doing some googling, and likely should go do some other stuff...i suppose the relationship with the family constellation was severed. to sever a relationship is not to create patient abandonment if there are other physicians to take the place. there might be some hot water based on discrimination due to a characteristic class of folks. if it were a small town and no other physicians, it might even become patient abandonment in that legal sense. could be some hot water in the timeliness, in that the parents didn't get to research other options, when there was enough time to be able to do so. i don't have the expertise to understand this in the legal context - possibly also hinging on whether the relationship with the family starts before the fetus becomes a 'person'? interesting from the medical ethics angle too. i'd be interested whether in pediatrics or family med there is somehow a family constellation aspect that overrides the 'individual' that one meets in order to initiate the relationship. will be interested if something about that individual vs family vs decision maker kind of thing regarding initiation of relationship comes across my path - if i meet a caregiver/decision maker first and agree, does that mean i've already started a relationship? in the meantime....back to work for me !

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

oh ok... i first read the 'dick move' as being related to the last-minute untimeliness. but just to get a more accurate sense of what you're saying, you were referring more to the refusal to see them based on sexuality? and you're not sure how much of a dick move that was - i.e. not condoning the behaviour, but also wondering whether it would truly be a violation.

I think the whole thing was handled badly. I think its poor form to refuse a patient based on something they can't change, though I certainly support the physician's right to do so. I think switching at the 6 day appointment was pretty crappy, however if the pediatrician honestly believed she couldn't provide ideal care to this patient then transfering care is absolutely the right move.

 

[seminoma]

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?

It's not wrong for a physician to do. Physician's can refuse service for any reason unless it's an emergent situation.

I don't share the same view on same sex couples as that physician, but I don't see anything wrong with standing up for your beliefs as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

Based on my understanding of the law, what she did was (unfortunately), not illegal. The federal civil rights act makes it illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, color, or national origin. The ADA added disability to that list. Some states have passed separate laws adding sexual orientation to that list, but apparently that is not the case in this state.

Hopefully this case gets enough attention to add sexual orientation to the list of classes that are illegal to discriminate against. In the mean time, the internet trolls shall exact their vengeance. The problem ends up being that when a wrong but forgivable act becomes a national sensation like this, the punishment always far exceeds the crime. For example, see this nytimes article about one lady who wrote an offensive tweet and basically had her life ruined. Use times like this to raise awareness, not for massive public shaming of someone whose views are no longer politically correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0

This shouldn't get any attention. It's a non-issue. A physician decides they do not want to treat a patient (who itself isn't being "discriminated against" based on sexual orientation) with whom they do not feel a physician-patient relationship could develop for whatever reason. Parents are not the patient.

There's no reason for the media to be all over this. If I was a pediatrician in that city and this couple came to me (after they took this to the media) I would refuse them too. People crying out to the media to embarrass someone who did nothing wrong is ridiculous and should not be rewarded with attention.

This couple is saying "we shouldn't have to deal with people judging us", yet they are going right to the media so that everyone will judge that pediatrician. Give me a break.

 

[PL198]

Well. I think it gives people something to at least get their brains around to understand a WHY even if they strongly disagree.

Besides a pediatrician simply declaring not not see one particular baby arbitrarily wouldn't make a lot of sense. I don't know if people would be more outraged, or more confused.

why do things make sense if they're based around religion though. I agree people would be confused, but it's a completely illogical thought process.

 

[PL198]

How is a bunch of internet crusaders who've never met her or had a medical encounter with her carpet-bombing physician rating sites "free market"?

I'd say that falls somewhere on the spectrum from trolling to slander.

way way way closer to slander.

 

[charmiedermie]

I got some good advice about 10 years ago: "You don't have to tell everything you know". Disagree with the physician's decision but she had the right to make it. IMO, her biggest mistake was "telling everything she knew", she should have kept her mouth closed on the why. How could she think this going public wouldn't be the outcome?

That's not exactly what happened.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/19/michigan-doctor-refuses-to-treat-child-of-lesbian

 

[seminoma]

That's not exactly what happened.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/19/michigan-doctor-refuses-to-treat-child-of-lesbian

Link dead. Edit: idk why, this one works and it looks exactly the same http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/19/michigan-doctor-refuses-to-treat-child-of-lesbian-/

 

[jdh71]

why do things make sense if they're based around religion though. I agree people would be confused, but it's a completely illogical thought process.

It gives the whole situation a context. Answers the "why" of why would she do what she did.

 

[charmiedermie]

Link dead. Edit: idk why, this one works and it looks exactly the same http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/19/michigan-doctor-refuses-to-treat-child-of-lesbian-/

Thank you!! Looks like there was a last "-" after the last word in the URL. Apparently, there was also a prenatal visit with that pediatrician, of which there is no patient . The "prayer" was after the prenatal visit.

 

[oldanddone]

It's not wrong for a physician to do. Physician's can refuse service for any reason unless it's an emergent situation.

I don't share the same view on same sex couples as that physician, but I don't see anything wrong with standing up for your beliefs as long as they aren't hurting anyone.



This shouldn't get any attention. It's a non-issue. A physician decides they do not want to treat a patient (who itself isn't being "discriminated against" based on sexual orientation) with whom they do not feel a physician-patient relationship could develop for whatever reason. Parents are not the patient.

I believe that in my jurisdiction, a doc can get into plenty hot water with the college for refusing for any reason. if a person says their practice is accepting new patients, there are many reasons that a person can't be turned down for. there are reasons that one can turn away new patients, but it is important to get informed, in my jurisdiction, so as to not be crossing any lines that will be sanctioned. i guess in keeping with the ama that has been quoted here and in the article around not refusing based on certain identity characteristics.

there are caveats for conscience and such.

the article that was linked that showed the interview happened before the birth uses the same argument that is used in the quote above, around the infant not having a defined sexuality and so the reason for refusal doesn't make sense. i believe the quote from the mother goes on to say, basically, 'just do your job which is ensure health'...but pediatricians/family docs work with families, not just individual children, and the 'job' is more than just guidelines and vaccinations. it didn't seem a great argument that the mother was using, and kind of undermining what a profession around health and caring is about, and how relationship is important. for a family that wanted holistic approaches, they sure weren't acknowledging bringing the 'whole person' to the work of doctoring, that it is more than just guidelines and protocols if it's going to be about relationship and some other amorphous stuff that usually gets called 'holistic'. but i suppose they are in an angry place and lashing out.

also, in the linked article, i didn't like this idea of, 'well, we'll just legislate, and those autonomous docs will see who's boss then'. there is something to be said for diversity of values/conscience, and what it means to practice a caring profession across difference. legislating seems to have a very, i don't know, ?cultural imperialist? ?homogenizing? flavour to it. in general, docs do reach out across difference to others, but there will be times that the differences come up strong. sure, to struggle against discrimination is important, but to steam-roller others who are different doesn't work well. i mean if all docs took on homophobic attitudes, then the ability to refer care would not be the safeguard in the system anymore. or the one doc in town refused to rx an ocp. there are moments of difficulty. so i like that we generally try to reach out across difference, knowing that there will be some times that we do find great conflict with our values, and at those times i feel it is important to value that. ah well. i'm sure this stuff has been said better in a more nuanced discussion somewhere else. back to work.

 

[Psai]

I got some good advice about 10 years ago: "You don't have to tell everything you know". Disagree with the physician's decision but she had the right to make it. IMO, her biggest mistake was "telling everything she knew", she should have kept her mouth closed on the why. How could she think this going public wouldn't be the outcome?

Wtf lol
when's the last time you made a decision, taking into account what the public would think?

 

[Eokpar02]

The parents lucked out. They don't want some quack like that treating their kid.

 

[jw3600]

Is this case different from a OB declining to form a elective abortion due to personal reliefs? With the understanding that there is no medical emergency. Not trying to be argumentative. Can't really think of one and I believe the above is legal.

 

[deleted480308]

Is this case different from a OB declining to form a elective abortion due to personal reliefs? With the understanding that there is no medical emergency. Not trying to be argumentative. Can't really think of one and I believe the above is legal.

Depending on the state it can qualify as discrimination of a public accomodation. (As in cases of baking cakes, providing flowers for weddings)

I think those laws are bogus infringements on rights of voluntary association but they do exist

 

[jw3600]

Is anyone saying it's illegal?

(srs question... there are three threads and hundreds of posts)

Good point. I think you are right. Allow me to rephrase: "Is there any difference with regards to ethics/morals of this decision versus declining to perform an elective abortion due to personal belief?" I feel like most people, regardless of their stance on abortion, feel like this is an acceptable decision.

 

[jw3600]

Depending on the state it can qualify as discrimination of a public accomodation. (As in cases of baking cakes, providing flowers for weddings)

I think those laws are bogus infringements on rights of voluntary association but they do exist

Interesting. So a private lawyer can be sued for not taking a case of someone who is a protected class?

 

[cbrons]

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 heard they treat most gay couples with children quite fairly in areas of the world where al jazeera is more popular.

 

[jw3600]

Personally I see something fundamentally different about abortions. In that case, you are literally asking someone to commit what they believe to be murder. They think abortion is taking a life. That is huge. And agree or not with their perspective I think the magnitude of that bears consideration.

In this case it is a mutual disagreement of belief systems. Neither party served to be harmed by the others' belief structure if they agree to part ways.

What if the physician felt that treating a certain person was a sin so terrible that it would have consequences in the afterlife. I certainly do not believe that, but I am trying to show how vague religious exemptions can be.

 

[seminoma]

Interesting. So a private lawyer can be sued for not taking a case of someone who is a protected class?

I doubt it. Lawyers aren't really in the service industry. The way I understand it, the lawyer takes a job and gets paid x per hour plus a bonus if they win. If lawyer thinks he can't win then it wouldn't be a wise business decision to take the case.. Which could be the excuse he uses if he felt like discriminating against someone.

 

[touchpause13]

Well I'm just approaching this from my own faith tradition/upbringing. In which treating and having compassion for a sinner is actually strongly encouraged, since we are all sinners.

Knowingly Committing a sin is an entirely different matter.

What I don't get is why does it matter if say I do something that you consider a sin, but I don't?

Like that's what bugs me, why should I have to play by the rules of something I don't believe in?

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

What I don't get is why does it matter if say I do something that you consider a sin, but I don't?

Like that's what bugs me, why should I have to play by the rules of something I don't believe in?

Conversely, why should someone not get to play by the rules of something they do believe in?

Your point is a decent point but is only really applicable in cases in which people are actually imposing their religious beliefs on others (ex. restricting gay marriage). The only way you could consider inaction an imposition is if one would somehow be severely restricting needed services to someone based on their beliefs. For instance, if she was the only pediatrician for 50 miles, one could start making a reasonable argument that the welfare of the child should ethically outweigh whatever beliefs she had about the parents. This obviously wasn't the case. She was rude and immature about the whole thing, yes, but that's about all she's guilty of in this situation.

 

[touchpause13]

Conversely, why should someone not get to play by the rules of something they do believe in?

Your point is a decent point but is only really applicable in cases in which people are actually imposing their religious beliefs on others (ex. restricting gay marriage). The only way you could consider inaction an imposition is if one would somehow be severely restricting needed services to someone based on their beliefs. For instance, if she was the only pediatrician for 50 miles, one could start making a reasonable argument that the welfare of the child should ethically outweigh whatever beliefs she had about the parents. This obviously wasn't the case. She was rude and immature about the whole thing, yes, but that's about all she's guilty of in this situation.

But where in the bible does it actually say that you can't treat the kid of a gay person?

 

[Lawgiver]

She heard a voice in her head after she prayed on it, telling her don't do it. This is pretty much what she admitted to in her letter. Easy to hide bigotry behind your religion. We could get into how slavery was justified using faith and bible...but we don't have to go there of course.

 

[chasm-e-baddoor]

She heard a voice in her head after she prayed on it, telling her don't do it. This is pretty much what she admitted to in her letter. Easy to hide bigotry behind your religion. We could get into how slavery was justified using faith and bible...but we don't have to go there of course.

The difference between this woman's bigotry and slavery is that this woman's bigotry did not impede on the rights of another individual, while slavery did.

 

[Psai]

She heard a voice in her head after she prayed on it, telling her don't do it. This is pretty much what she admitted to in her letter. Easy to hide bigotry behind your religion. We could get into how slavery was justified using faith and bible...but we don't have to go there of course.

Calm down there, Professor Dawkins. It doesn't matter what she believes in, she is fully within her rights to see whichever patients she wants and this media witchhunt is unnecessary and just plain mean. Tell the parents to get over it and finds a new pediatrician

 

[Lawgiver]

The media and internet are fully within their rights to express how they feel about it.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean its not wrong. This is how change occurs, society expresses its values. You are basically saying please don't express your values, while at the same time defending a bigot for expressing hers.

 

[Lawgiver]

Hehe my ignore list is showing up. Keep at it boys!

 

[deleted480308]

It doesn't.

Like I said above, I personally disagree with the belief underlying this. And I think her way of going about it was particularly stupid. But I know enough misguided people with similar ways of thinking that I don't think it is reasonable to basically ruin the career of every single person with religious based homophobia. As jdh said that's getting into thought police territory.

I just don't see this as a breach of patient care. We take care of all kinds of people whose belief systems we don't believe in, including criminals, racists, etc. I personally have operated on people who both terrify and disgust me...and once I'm an oncologist I certainly don't plan on including someone's beliefs or behaviors into my decision to be their physician. But in the case of a primary pediatrician, that doesn't seem like a breach to me.

For one, that is a very different relationship and the relationship between the doctor and the parents does matter a ton. It's also totally elective and, unless as said above they are in an underserved area, there are plenty of alternatives. It's also a very long relationship - ideally nearly 20 years. If there is something that is going to be a major barrier between the parents and doctor forming a relationship, then I would think both sides would not want to embark on that relationship. For a similar situation but a different belief structure - think of how much we all applaud pediatricians who refuse to treat the children of anti-vaxxers.

i said something similar in another thread. unless someone is a parent or a pediatrician, it's hard to grasp the depth of relationship there. This isn't like refusing to stitch up a cut knee at urgent care.

 

[sgv]

No patient abandonment, right? It was nonetheless a tactless move to humiliate and waste the couple's time as if they were second rate citizens.

 

[oldanddone]

What I don't get is why does it matter if say I do something that you consider a sin, but I don't?

Like that's what bugs me, why should I have to play by the rules of something I don't believe in?

But where in the bible does it actually say that you can't treat the kid of a gay person?

It doesn't matter if the two people avoid each other. However, if they want to be in relationship with each other, then it becomes important to bridge differences. Sometimes people even fall in love across these differences Sometimes there are power structures and politics that prop up some perspectives or there is a trend to try and 'convert' or 'destroy' others based on differences. That can get messy. Granted.

I'm not sure why you're interested about where in the bible it says something, if you yourself don't use the bible as part of your formation of beliefs. It's like trying to go to the heart of someone else's beliefs and values and critique them based on their own tools. Why do that? Especially if you don't have an intricate or nuanced understanding of the belief system. For instance, the catholic church has a lot of extra documents that come from the vatican, they don't rely on the bible alone. jewish tradition has scholarship that is kept from every age that reflects and discusses the original text.

not sure why you want to play by the rules of something you don't believe in, to the point where you would try to critique from the 'inside' based on your understanding of what the 'inside' would do - use the bible alone. just don't play by the rules of things you don't believe in!

but try to be respectful when making a bridge to others. that's why i don't like the mob mentality per se. sure there is something to be said for social shaming. but i'm not sure if it works really, it doesn't create the kind of world i want to be in that has time for each other to understand and be kind. why try to attack somebody's livelihood? why not try to facillitate the two parties resolving their hurt and being able to make a decision together? as an example. restorative, rather than punitive, justice.

 

[jdh71]

But where in the bible does it actually say that you can't treat the kid of a gay person?

Steve 14:23

 

[deleted480308]

But where in the bible does it actually say that you can't treat the kid of a gay person?

I don't think it does, but that has very little to do with the actual issue here

 

[jdh71]

No patient abandonment, right? It was nonetheless a tactless move to humiliate and waste the couple's time as if they were second rate citizens.

Oh JFC. Show your evidence the the decision was done for the specific purpose of humiliation and wasting of time??

This. Is a perfect example of how these things too often can't be honestly discussed.

 

[rajhanda]

The outrage machine leans left . . .

They are wishing death and cancer on her online.

 

[jdh71]

They are wishing death and cancer on her online.

As she deserves!!

 

[oldanddone]

pitchforkery foolishness and violence is just not a good answer and nobody deserves that

 

[3rdan]

We must support our outrage manufacturing industry. That's all we have because all the real manufacturing is in China.

 

[oldanddone]

i just realized the irony in the posts tooling up for the fight with utensils.

 

[oldanddone]

Oh JFC. Show your evidence the the decision was done for the specific purpose of humiliation and wasting of time??

This. Is a perfect example of how these things too often can't be honestly discussed.

I don't think that it was meant or done in order to humiliate and waste time.
However, that was what happened.
therefore, the situation points to a failure in good communication/relationship focus.
waiting until the last minute was poor form, and did serve to cause humiliation and a waste of time.
choosing to have a colleague deliver the news, and avoid the folks at all costs, by not even coming in that day, was also poor form, and served to cause humiliation and perhaps even escalate the situation. also poor communication/relationship focus.
like breaking up via a friend.

edit: result: aaannnnggrrryy ex lover!!!!! oh the spite in an exlover smited! handle with caution!!!

 

[Psai]

No patient abandonment, right? It was nonetheless a tactless move to humiliate and waste the couple's time as if they were second rate citizens.

It's a tactless move to report someone's behavior to the media so that they can humiliate and waste the person's time. Do you know what happens when things like this happen to people? These people get harassed with emails, phone calls, online messages from random people they don't know who do anything from insult them to threaten their lives. No matter what they did, no one deserves that