Doctors Cannot Deny Treatment to Homosexuals

[Athena]

In the last few years, there have been a couple of cases like this in the news, attempting to answer this question: What CAN doctor's refuse to provide based on religious beliefs?

It's not an easy question to answer. I, myself, struggle to come to a solid opinion regarding the matter. Generally speaking, I believe that a doctor should be able to refuse to provide any service that conflicts with his or her religious beliefs. If a doctor refuses, the patient can simply switch doctors, as I did with my last doctor. This question had come up regarding Plan B, the "abortion pill". I've never required Plan B, but was curious as to where my doctor stood. I called the office and asked if they prescribed said pill, and the gal curtly responded, "We don't do that here," before hanging up on me. Well, that's all I needed to know. I've recently found myself a bright, young doctor with views similar to my own, and I'm smitten. Had my old doctor not been able to refuse, I may have never made the much needed switch.

Of course, that's all easy for me to say. I've never required services that can be denied. Take this couple, for example. A lesbian couple, the two women were interested in artificial insemination. The clinic that enjoyed an exclusive contract with the Guadalupe Benitez's insurance dropped her as a patient, citing religious beliefs. Benitez couldn't simply switch clinics, given the nature of the contract this clinic had with her insurance, so she sued, and, according to the California Supreme Court, she was right.

Doctors can't discriminate against gays based on religious belief. In this case, I agree. Doctors who refuse to perform abortions or prescribe birth control aren't discriminating. They're saying, "These are the services my office will not provide." The doctors in the above case were saying, "Oh, we'll perform this service, just not to certain types of people." Not okay.

[Pete Bondurant]

Originally Posted by Athena

so she sued, and, according to the California Supreme Court, she was right.

The California State Supreme Court is to state supreme courts what Clay Aiken is to kick-boxing.

[celtic friend]

Yes it is quite different. How would you feel though, if the Doctor simply did not perform AI on people who are not married?

BTW, I am pretty sure Plan B is over the counter now.

[brokenandtwisted]

Yes, they can. At least in Canada.

But I will respond tomorrow when I'm not medicated. :he:

[Athena]

Originally Posted by celtic friend

Yes it is quite different. How would you feel though, if the Doctor simply did not perform AI on people who are not married?

BTW, I am pretty sure Plan B is over the counter now.

Hmmm...I think I'd feel the same way as I do about the situation above. It's still discrimination, only it's discriminating against unmarried people rather than gays. Not cool either way, I don't think.

Yeah, Plan B is over-the-counter.

[celtic friend]

No I agree with you. I thought I heard of it somehow, maybe I am wrong.
Also how about adoption? The rules are outrageous to adopt a child here. Wouldn't that be sort of the same with AI, the end result is the people having a child one way or another?
Forgive me, I really don't know where I am going with this. Just thinking and writing, never a good combo for me.

[Peeperann]

Originally Posted by Athena

In the last few years, there have been a couple of cases like this in the news, attempting to answer this question: What CAN doctor's refuse to provide based on religious beliefs?

It's not an easy question to answer. I, myself, struggle to come to a solid opinion regarding the matter. Generally speaking, I believe that a doctor should be able to refuse to provide any service that conflicts with his or her religious beliefs. If a doctor refuses, the patient can simply switch doctors, as I did with my last doctor. This question had come up regarding Plan B, the "abortion pill". I've never required Plan B, but was curious as to where my doctor stood. I called the office and asked if they prescribed said pill, and the gal curtly responded, "We don't do that here," before hanging up on me. Well, that's all I needed to know. I've recently found myself a bright, young doctor with views similar to my own, and I'm smitten. Had my old doctor not been able to refuse, I may have never made the much needed switch.

Of course, that's all easy for me to say. I've never required services that can be denied. Take this couple, for example. A lesbian couple, the two women were interested in artificial insemination. The clinic that enjoyed an exclusive contract with the Guadalupe Benitez's insurance dropped her as a patient, citing religious beliefs. Benitez couldn't simply switch clinics, given the nature of the contract this clinic had with her insurance, so she sued, and, according to the California Supreme Court, she was right.

Doctors can't discriminate against gays based on religious belief. In this case, I agree. Doctors who refuse to perform abortions or prescribe birth control aren't discriminating. They're saying, "These are the services my office will not provide." The doctors in the above case were saying, "Oh, we'll perform this service, just not to certain types of people." Not okay.

Thanks so much for this post. I have a gay son, and lots of gay friends. I hate that doctors think they can do this. The hippacratic oath says "First do no harm".

And in my opinion, they are hurting these patients, ecspecially if they offer the service, but not to "certain people".

[CPL CHUD]

Originally Posted by Athena

I've never required services that can be denied. Take this couple, for example. A lesbian couple, the two women were interested in artificial insemination. The clinic that enjoyed an exclusive contract with the Guadalupe Benitez's insurance dropped her as a patient, citing religious beliefs.

That's gay.

[brokenandtwisted]

I feel so out of the loop when you discuss policies Athena...since I'm not American. :p I'll go Canadian...since you know, this is stuff I know. :he:

Denying someone medical treatment is okay if there is another professional who is capable (if not more qualified) to deal with the matter...as long as it is not a recurring issue. It is not okay if the treatment is immediate. This is from the Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics:

17. In providing medical service, do not discriminate
against any patient on such grounds as age, gender,
marital status, medical condition, national or ethnic
origin, physical or mental disability, political
affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, or
socioeconomic status. This does not abrogate the
physician’s right to refuse to accept a patient for
legitimate reasons.

A legit reason, would be your religious rights.

I must admit I am unfamiliar with anti-discrimination laws in the States. In Canada we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is entrenched into the Canadian Constitution. Basically how it works is that everything is "stacked" or in order of importance. The first is this:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This implies that everything after s.1 in the Charter is subjected to reasonable limits and can be interpreted in a court of law. Skip down to s.7 then s.15(1):

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Although Canada is relatively liberal, sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Charter - we would need a referendum. Every legal document (statute, common etc.) is subjected to this Charter when referring to rights and freedoms. By interpreting this (as stated earlier) one would argue for their rights and equal protection, benefits under s.15(1). s.7 has precedence over s.15(1), however s.7 is subjected to the reasonable limits outlined in s.1. So the question is in the end, is the protection of religious rights (which some would describe as necessity) reasonable compared to the rights of sexual orientation (when this procedure is non life-threatening)?

Adding to that, I don't see this being a huge issue since your specialty, if you chose one, would reflect your beliefs. Take for example: You're not going to go into vascular surgery if you're a Jehovah's Witness. In a hospital a doctor will not know your sexual orientation...in an artificial insemination clinic, yes. That is neither here nor there...it is not something life threatening. It's a private practice, they serve who they want to. You don't necessarily need it at a specific clinic, and if you do, then you fucked up your insurances.

If I were religious I probably wouldn't serve them either. This is not life-threating and is not a necessity.

[Athena]

Fuck. I just accidentally erased everything.

*Sigh*

Okay - In short, there's kind of two things going on, here, from what I can tell.

1.) It's not really proven that an aversion to gays or impregnating gays is "firmly rooted" in the religion these doctors were claiming. Strict scrutiny is applied to religious exemption claims. Example - the Amish remove their kids from school after 8th grade. This tradition was found to be clear and firmly rooted, thus satisfying the scrutiny and trumping any governmental interest in forcing these kids into school.

2.) Because of the "generally applicable and neutral" nature of California's discrimination law, governmental interest need not be proven, even if the law appears to place a burden on certain religious groups, because the government isn't specifically interfering with the practice of that religion, and the law is so broadly applied that government interest is implied.

Read the entire decision here. The stuff I'm referencing is part III, pages 7-12.

Incidentally, it's kind of interesting comparing Canadian and American law. So similar, but some notable and unexpected differences.

[brokenandtwisted]

Originally Posted by Athena

Fuck. I just accidentally erased everything.

*Sigh*

Okay - In short, there's kind of two things going on, here, from what I can tell.

1.) It's not really proven that an aversion to gays or impregnating gays is "firmly rooted" in the religion these doctors were claiming. Strict scrutiny is applied to religious exemption claims. Example - the Amish remove their kids from school after 8th grade. This tradition was found to be clear and firmly rooted, thus satisfying the scrutiny and trumping any governmental interest in forcing these kids into school.

This is all too true...however, how one interprets the text defines the beliefs that stem from it. Since the whole "homosexuals are condemned" thing (Romans something? Any Bible thumpers here?) many people interpret it as such. Why would this be any exception? I don't really see an issue...it's their practice, their medical degree...do what they will. Had this been an emergency issue, like cardiac arrest...then yes, obviously they'd be treated. I do wonder though, do they deny Blacks? Jews? Interesting to know what other "groups" they block out.

Originally Posted by Athena

2.) Because of the "generally applicable and neutral" nature of California's discrimination law, governmental interest need not be proven, even if the law appears to place a burden on certain religious groups, because the government isn't specifically interfering with the practice of that religion, and the law is so broadly applied that government interest is implied.

Read the entire decision here. The stuff I'm referencing is part III, pages 7-12.

Incidentally, it's kind of interesting comparing Canadian and American law. So similar, but some notable and unexpected differences.

Ah, I see...for human rights cases' we tend to skip the Ontario law and head to federal...but I know states have their own individual laws down there, so it seems reasonable.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by brokenandtwisted

This is all too true...however, how one interprets the text defines the beliefs that stem from it. Since the whole "homosexuals are condemned" thing (Romans something? Any Bible thumpers here?) many people interpret it as such. Why would this be any exception? I don't really see an issue...it's their practice, their medical degree...do what they will. Had this been an emergency issue, like cardiac arrest...then yes, obviously they'd be treated. I do wonder though, do they deny Blacks? Jews? Interesting to know what other "groups" they block out.

Well, down here, religions and aspects of those religions have to be formally recognized. There has to be some precedent, otherwise, people could claim whatever "interpretation" they cared to in order to obtain exemption. How it could reasonably be interpreted doesn't matter as much as how it's commonly interpreted. Recognized religions can exempt one from a lot of things, so long as it is either stated clearly or there is history of church members all behaving a certain way based on their beliefs.

This just isn't the case with Christian doctors treating homosexuals. Homosexuality is considered a sin like any other, and there's no tenent forbidding Christians to help sinners, to my knowledge. I mean, if that was the case, these people wouldn't treat remarried divorcees or non-believers (among other things) either.

[Boondock]

Originally Posted by Athena

This just isn't the case with Christian doctors treating homosexuals. Homosexuality is considered a sin like any other, and there's no tenent forbidding Christians to help sinners, to my knowledge. I mean, if that was the case, these people wouldn't treat remarried divorcees or non-believers (among other things) either.

This is the statement that I feel condemns these doctors. Any "good Christian" should make this very arguement to them. If anything, these doctors are going directly against the teachings of the bible.

[MOGal]

Originally Posted by Boondock

This is the statement that I feel condemns these doctors. Any "good Christian" should make this very arguement to them. If anything, these doctors are going directly against the teachings of the bible.

I think the argument here would be that there is a difference in helping the sinner and enabling his sin. I wouldn't kick a pedophile out of Sunday church service,..but he won't be in charge of the daycare!

[Athena]

Originally Posted by MOGal

I think the argument here would be that there is a difference in helping the sinner and enabling his sin. I wouldn't kick a pedophile out of Sunday church service,..but he won't be in charge of the daycare!

That's a great point. Providing in-vitro fertilization to lesbians could be seen as encouraging or facilitating their sinning. I don't think these doctors could really pull that card, though, seeing as how they were providing other fertility treatment despite having knowledge of her sexuality. Why should in-vitro be any different than the multiple other treatments performed prior to that?

[Abroad]

I don't think these doctors could really pull that card, though, seeing as how they were providing other fertility treatment despite having knowledge of her sexuality. Why should in-vitro be any different than the multiple other treatments performed prior to that?

Surely if they have been treating them for infertility in other ways up until then the doctors do not have a leg to stand on?