Attorney: Doctors should have right to refuse treatment to lesbians

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/10/101105insemination.htm

A lawyer for two Southern California doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient told an appeals court Tuesday that doctors should have the right to refuse treatment if it violates their religious beliefs.

Attorney Carlo Coppo told a three-judge state appeals court in San Diego that understanding his clients' religious beliefs are paramount to deciding whether they were wrong to deny treatment in 1999 to Guadalupe Benitez.

The doctors should be allowed to explain "what went through their hearts and minds when they did what they did," Coppo said.

[tatertop]

1. We are sliding into the far distant past

And I don't like it.
Didn't we already fight for (and win) these rights?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Rick "frothy mixture" Santorum is the finest mind of the 13th century.

He may not be directly involved in this, but he is spiritually in the background.

[ladjf]

3. Santorum is not the finest mind of the 13th Century. He might

be one of the worst minds of that century. But, I do get the point of Mr. Santorums backward thinking.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. He is. But if this were 13th century, he'd be the finest mind of the 5th.

It's not entirely his own fault he is 8 centuries behind the times. Design, intelligent or otherwise, might have something to do with it.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

13. In the 13th century

did parents sit around playing with a dead preemie fetus like Mr. and Mrs. Santorum did?

Sick freaks!

[Kindigger]

4. Maybe that's why I do genealogy

I'll know where I am when we finally get there.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

5. Here's the easy solution

If these stupid, Visigothic pukes want to sit around contemplating what St. Paul meant and how many angels can do the electric boogaloo in the head of a pin, THEY NEED TO STOP BEING DOCTORS AND GO BECOME PRIESTS!

How hard is that?

[Solo_in_MD]

10. That is a little over the top

Doctors can and do refuse to accepts patients all the time. A good example is plastic surgeons. While California law says that doctors can not discriminate based on a list of factors, that does not mean they have to accept anyone who walks in the door. Technically, they can refuse patients for any reason except those enumerated in the law.

IIRC current standard of care is that if a doctor offers certain services, he/she needs to offer them to all of their patients. That is clear legally and ethically. However, it is perfectly reasonable for a doctor to say "I don't provide XYZ services" The standard of care at that point is to refer them to someone who does, or at least a registry where they could locate a physician who does.

The law and society does not and should not require physicians to provides services they do not agree with.

Note that my comments are about elective treatment, not someone bleeding out in the ER.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

12. Not Over The Top At All

If you're in the fertility business, you're already doing in vitros and artificial inseminations.

Ever consider that it's possible now for a virgin female to become pregnant without having "sex?" Surely to goodness creating another "virgin birth" with a forty year old would be more disturbing than letting Melissa Ethridge have a baby without doing the nasty.

By your own criteria, it appears that if one offers in vitro to the straight people, the same should be available to the non-straight. Just as with one offers fertility services to paying white folks, one must offer them to paying persons of other color.

We've gone through periods in this country where we turned loose the discrimination beast. This business with "doctors" is no different, nor less insidious for their being "doctors."

Wait. What if the virgin is a *lesbian* virgin? Wow! The "conscience" implications just get deeper and deeper and deeper.

One certainly need not treat everyone who comes in the door at an elective practice. One certainly need not treat the ones who can't pay (Holy Green Communion) because there's absoultely NO CHANCE that the poor person seeking services could possibly have a baby who (to steal one from the "pro-lifers") CURES CANCER! No artificially inseminated lesbian's baby could ever possibly do anything to make the fertility's doctor's efforts worthwhile.

I hate bigotry in all forms, with the single exception of bigotry against bigots. Every last one of these "conscience" people are using a real, meaningful human concern as a mask for abject, unabashed bigotry.

Not flaming you personally, Solo, but we must understand where these right-wing freaks want to take this nation.
:grr:

[Solo_in_MD]

15. If the story as presented is in deed a unbiased view of the facts

the docs should pay fairly substantial punitive damages and pay for another group to do the work they were paid for but unwilling to finish (compensatory damages). Beyond that I am not willing to go.

I am actually hoping the marketplace will also address most of the conscious clause issues. Using the pharmacy example:

1) I own the pharmacy so I decide what I stock. If another pharmacist works for me but won't dispense XYZ for religious reasons, thats fine, however they won't work for me.

2) I own the pharmacy and decide not to stock XYZ. I contract with a big insurance plan as a preferred provider. They pay for XYZ. I have a choice, stock/dispense XYZ or lose the insurance plan. If I chose not to carry it, without the preferred provider business and the residual and incidental sales it brings, I go out of business.

Some progressives seem to fear market forces because of the taint of capitalism, but it can be very powerful for us as well. Progressive values often do make business sense as well.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

16. A Nice Idea

But the freaks are ahead of the curve in trying to turn themselves into a protected class. So you WON'T be able to fire the freak because The Invisible Cloud being or Yahweh or Allah or The Flying Spaghetti Monster TELLS them not to do it. And you danged sure can't discriminate based upon religion.

Can you imagine that? We can't pass a law that says killing queers because they're queer is illegal, but we can make it mandatory that pharmacists who care more about blastocysts than a real, live human being standing right in front of them must be molly-coddled and given the sugar-teat even if it means some 15 year old girl who, gasp, had sex ONCE, now has to have a baby.

Screw 'em. Really. Screw 'em and their ugly little "conscience" subterfuge! And I'm not willing to wait for the Market Forces or God or the Great Whatever. I want 'em dealt with NOW, before they hurt someone I love with their religious bigotry.

[Spinzonner]

6. I agree

and then their license to Practice should be immediately suspended pending revocation.

You take your patients as you find them or you don't take any at all.

What and who are they going to refuse treat then if things start down this slippery slope.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. And they don't have to treat

Black people
Women
Spanish people
Children
Fat people......

alcoholics.....


junkies....


AIDS patients...

But they get Wednesdays off and two hours for lunch.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

14. What? Did they already lose their golf?

Oh, wait. Wednesdays. My bad.

:beer:

[KLF44]

9. First the pharmacist refuse

certain prescriptions and now the doctors are refusing treatment claiming it violates their religious beliefs. GMAFB!!!

If it violates your beliefs then you need to get out of that job and find something else to do with your hate filled life.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Does the doctor's religion include killing HIV patients?

I mean, such a fucked religion such as his, I am sure it considers killing LGBTs to be a virtue.

[Ally McLesbian]

18. That's precisely...

why I left the Christian faith. It's a death cult as it is practiced in America today.

Sure, I could've chosen to stay in a "progressive" Christian congregation, but the patriarchal way of life is killing not only gays, but women as well. I needed to lose the whole thought system altogether.

[Ally McLesbian]

17. On an unrelated note...

Southern California is becoming redder and redder day by day, and it's looking as religious as the Deep South. Especially, we are losing the heavily religious and conservative immigrant vote...

We shouldn't just be fighting on the basis of gay rights. We need to reach out proactively to these immigrant groups and sell our progressive ideas. Otherwise all these Latino cathedrals and Korean churches will drown us before we even realize that their foreign tongues were not contributing to diversity, but to hatred instead.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. What about Christian Science paramedics?

Can they chose to pray faithfully over an accident victim rather than administer medical treatment? It is their religion, after all.

[Dark]

20. What happened to the Hippocratic oath? n/t

[Dora]

21. These doctors went to the wrong ceremony.

They went to the Hypocritic Oath Swearing instead.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. The Hippocratic Oath is made to pagan gods

Apollo and Asclepius, if memory serves. Therefore, the doctors in question never took the oath, as it was a violation of their religious views.

[arwalden]

22. Typical! Christians Think That Their Christianity Is A Free Pass For...

... ALL their bigotry and hatred.

[happyslug]

23. Can the law REQUIRE people to do things they object to????

That is the question and it is a difficult one when it comes to Civil Rights. It is the balance between two rights, the first is the right to be left to do as one wants, the other is to be treated equally by others. While many people do not see the conflict between these two Civil Rights, the conflict is clearly seen in the case where the Law requires someone to do things he or she does NOT want to do (i.e. a violation of the right to do what one want to do) when the reason for the requirement is to give equally treatment to all others.

Now some aspects of this conflict in law are easy, for example under the common law an "Inn" (Which Includes Inns, Restaurants, Hotels, Motels and other such Establishments open to the General Public) had to take in anyone who could pay the fee. The same with Common Carriers (i.e. Stagecoaches, Trains, Buses, Planes are examples of "Common Carriers") who had to provide rides to anyone who could pay the fee. Under Segregation the states passed laws permitting innkeepers from serving people they did not want to serve (i.e. exclude Blacks) and segregating Common Carriers by race. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed its primary intention was to reverse and outlaw these exceptions to the common law rule. In both situations most people have no objections to the requirement that people be treated equally.

On the other hand in addition to opening up Inns and Common Carriers to everyone, the Civil Rights Act also outlawed employment and housing discrimination. Historically employers had the right to hire and fire anyone they wanted to hire and fire (and people had the right to sell or rent their homes to whoever they wanted and refuse to sell their homes or rent their homes to people they did NOT want to). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed both practices, but unlike the case of Inns and Common Carriers, employment and housing had NEVER been open to anyone who applied. Historically employers could discriminate (Unlike Inns and common carriers).

Now with large employers the employment section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was NOT a problem, for such large employers viewed hiring the same as buying material (Through it was a fight throughout the 1960s to get some large businesses to accept non-discrimination among their employees).

While large companies were a major problem the real big problem on employment discrimination were the smaller companies were the employer worked with his or her employees and any conflict between the employee and employer was to be worked out directly by the employer not the employer's human relations office. While you hear of cases involving Inns and common carriers every so often, these are rare, the more common discrimination is in employment (With housing a close second, often for the same reasons).

This is further complicated by the need for "professionals" (Doctors, lawyers etc) to be able to work with and for their clients/patients. A lot of Small Business are providers of such professional services (as is the case involved in this lawsuit). The court have long permitted such dissemination when in comes to such one to one relationships, the big issue is when does the right to select who ones work with and for and when does the LAW require one to work with someone one does NOT want to work with or for? The courts do not want to force someone to have to work with someone who the employer has a problem working with at the same time the Court want people to be able to access such professionals. It is a difficult balancing act.

Should I be permitted to discriminate when I do not think I can work with a client? If the answer is yes, what if the reason is because the person is in a protected class and the reason I can not work with him or her is that he or she is a member of the protected class? Should the law require me to work with that person anyway? What If I do not think I can do the best job I can given the situation? Does that give me a duty NOT to work with the worker (i.e. I could NOT do my best because the worker is a member of the protected class)? In fact am I NOT doing the worker harm by working with or for him when I know I can NOT do a good job? It is for this reason most small employers are generally exempt from Employment discrimination laws, but I believe California does NOT have a limit a to the number of Employees one must have to come under its anti0discrimination act (Unlike the Federal Government who excludes employers of 15 or less employees from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act o 1964 and employers of 20 or less employees from Age discrimination Act).

In this case the Doctors are saying they right to religious belief would be infringed if required to provide services to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is her right to live her life an she wants to will be infringed if the Doctors do not provide the services offered by the doctor. From my reading of California law the rights appear to be equal and why the Court of Appeals sent this case back down to the Trial Court for a Trial (A complicating factor is the Doctors did provide services for over ten months before they said they will NOT do the procedure, so you have a Contract issue in addition to the Discrimination issue. The Contract issue is that the Doctors Breeched their Contract with the Plaintiff when they backed out of providing the services contracted for).

My gut feeling of this case is the Court will have a hard time forcing Doctors (or other professionals) from taking patients/Clients that Doctor (or other professionals) do NOT want to take. On the other hand the Doctors did provide treatment for ten months, thus I also see the Court Ruling the Doctors Breeched their contract with the Plaintiff. That gets to the problem of damages and the Plaintiff had gone to another clinic and had a child through the other clinic (Under Contract law a non-breeching party has a duty to minimize her loss, so even if she had NOT gone to the other clinic the court will reduce any damages as if she had gone to the clinic). Thus the issue is what finance harm did the Doctor cause the Plaintiff? Speculative Damages is the same as no damages, thus unless she can provide evidence of financial harm I see her willing a whole Dollar on the Breech of Contract action and losing on the Discrimination action.

Federal EEOC Website:
http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_coverage.html

California handbook on Discrimination:
http://caag.state.ca.us/publications/civilrights/01CRhandbook/index.htm

[IndianaGreen]

24. The same argument was used by white doctors to refuse treating Blacks

I am old enough to have lived during a segregated America, when restaurants would have a separate room with separate entrance for "Colored" people. The same arguments that the fundies are using to justify their actions towards LGBTs are the same arguments used by segregationists to justify segregation. From separate facilities to separate "colored" military regiments, I am hearing the same racist shit all over again.

How would you feel if a doctor were to say that his religion prevents him from treating someone because their race was different from his?

[happyslug]

25. My point is it a conflict of Rights.

The law for Centuries when it came to Public Inns and Common Carriers were clear, you could NOT discriminate. This was first changed during segregation to justify segregation. The Rationale behind the Common Law Rule was it would be unsafe to leave people outside so the law AND alternatives where hard to find in most areas thus the law REQUIRED Inns to take everyone in. The same difficulty in finding alternative transport lead to a similar rule for Common carriers i.e. Common Carriers could NOT refuse anyone who could pay.

Now when it came to personal service people were always given the option of saying no. As a general rule you can not be forced to work with someone you do not want to work with (i.e. you can quit if you do not want to work with someone). Just think about it, if you hate someone so bad what would happen to you if you were FORCED to work with him and CAN NOT QUIT?

Now in larger employers this is rarely a problem for the employer just moves the the people around, in smaller employer such inter-personal conflicts may never be resolvable. In the case of Professionals how can you force someone to do something he or he does NOT want to do? if you can is the person liable of he does it badly? Is he still liable if he can show the reason he did it badly was because he was forced against his better judgment to work with the Plaintiff? You may dislike these arguments, but there are VALID arguments when it comes to employment.

On the other hand is the Professional more like a Common Carrier, i.e. you have to go to him or no one? In such a situation the Doctor is more like a Common Carrier than a Professional but do we still want him to be FORCED to provide the Service?

I am sorry, I agree with the Federal Civil Rights Act saying of the Employer has less than 15 employees he is NOT subject to its terms. A blanket requirement to provide services no matter the size of the employer is forcing people doing things that they do NOT fell comfortable doing. Above 15 employees you can move people around to work around who they can work with, less than 15 employees that is a lot harder to do especially given the biggest restriction is going to be the 2-4 professionals in most such businesses.

Thus the problem is how to balance between these two "Rights". The EEOC seems to have set a good number at 15.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. You confuse being racially diverse with refusing service

The Federal Civil Rights Act states that employers are not supposed to take race, religion, etc in to hiring consideration. Employers with 15 or more employees are required to demonstrate that they comply, but that does not exempt businesses with 14 or fewer employees.

But that is a strawman argument. ALL businesses that perform a public service must accomodate the public, without regard to race, religion, gender, etc. A mom-and-pop corner shop with only five employees may not put up a sign that reads, "Christians only." A swimming pool facility may not enforce a "No Jews" rule even if they have only ten employees. If it is a "public accomodation" -- and any restaurant, shop, lodging or other facility that opens to the public is, by definition, a public accomodation -- it may not discriminate, period. It has the right to refuse service to an individual, of course, but if that is consistently used against persons who are or are not in a particular category, they are violating well settled law.

At issue is whether a doctor's services meet the definition of "public accomodation." State courts have pretty consistently ruled that yes they are. For example, a doctor may refuse to perform any abortions. If he does offer that service, however, it has been settled by the courts that it is illegal for him to refuse to provide an abortion based on the woman's marital status.

[bluedawg12]

33. Isn't entering into a doctor patient relationship voluntary?

In this case- the health care provided is a service, it is not a treatment as fertility is not an issue between same sex partners.

Now, if the doctor enters into a doc-patient relationship and provides say for ex: gynecological care to a women who then gets pregnant outside of marriage and does not want her husband to know- and then, her gyne, who does perform ab's refuses to do so because she is married and her husband should know, or consent, or married women should not get ab's then that would be discrimination.

Also, if a physician is on call for a hospital E.R. and in comes a gay patient with a medical problem, say a heart attack, or fracture, then that wold be a violation of Federal ERISA laws.

Just for what it's worth, some doctors are refusing to treat attorney's or their families.

This politicization of medicine is a slippery slope.

How about in war. Do you refuse treatment to the enemy, who moments before was shooting at you? Not ethically.

[Dark]

34. The doctor doesn't HAVE to do anything.

But if he wants to keep his license, then he should HAVE to help someone, regardless of his religious beliefs.

[bluedawg12]

28. Thank you for saying that- bigotry is bigotry

it comes in different colors and variations- but it's the same crap all over again.

[bluedawg12]

29. The doctors can't be forced into a doctor relationship

if it is not an emergency situation and the Dr. is on call.

It seems this is a more symbolic suit- one that brings out homophobia, which is the over riding problem.

[kevinbgoode]

31. I would think this argument should work best in

demanding that government allow people to discriminate on the basis of religious affilation - since it is obvious that these beliefs are a matter of choice and that evangelicals, for example, certainly are not compelled by any immutable characteristic to join a church that demands they discriminate against others.

In this respect, there would indeed be balance, since religious affilation is clearly a choice and the citizen should fully know the consequences of such choices.

Seems to me preventing this very travesty is why our Constitution did not establish a church - and it is ludicrous to think that a person is unable to "practice" his religion unless they are allowed to persecute someone else. No other American is supposed to be a human sacrifice for someone else's religious beliefs.

[bluedawg12]

32. Reading the self rigthteous RW relious medical agitprop.

A sample of their beautiful writtings:
http://www.linda.net/gaystudy.html

"This practice carries great risk for both participants. The rectum was not created to withstand this abuse. Fecal matter can inter through the urethra, and sperm breaks through the single layer of the columnar epithelium of the rectum, causing massive immunological disruptions in the blood system, making the person at much greater risk for infection. It's no wonder that homosexuals are 245% more apt to report 2 or more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) at a time, than heterosexuals. "
..........
Medical Justification for bigotry--it goes very deep these articles are written by a Catholic Dr. Joseph Mengala-kidding.


http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles.htm

Scientific Evidence Against Homosexuality
Content Advisory: The material contained in these articles is graphic and direct.

The Medical Evidence That Homosexuality Is Incompatible With Good Public Health
www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m157.htm

Sodomy Decision Based On Fraudulent 'Science'
www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m159.htm

Medical Downside of Homosexual Behavior - A Political Agenda Is Trumping Science
www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m160.htm

Exposing the Media Lie That Homosexual Relationships Are Healthy, Stable and Loving
www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m163.htm

The Direct Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m166.htm

HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOPE: Statement Of The Catholic Medical Association
www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m076.htm

[kevinbgoode]

30. And states should be permitted

to use their religious beliefs as a basis for preventing the issuance of a license to practice medicine. If their religious beliefs, particularly in regard to the sexual orientation of a patient. . .are so prominent that it impairs their ability to do their JOB and follow their Hippocratic Oath, perhaps they need to stick to faith healing and serve their own believers.