Pediatrician Refuses To Care For Baby With Lesbian Mothers In Michigan

[Syt]

I keep reading the thread title as "Patrician refuses ..."

Probably because I'm reading up on everyday life in the Roman Empire at the momen.

[Martinus]

Oh that would make for a great Roman law case study. They would probably resolve it with lots of formulae, rods, donkeys and hand waving though.

[Martinus]

Roman law was my favourite subject in college, by the way. Unlike other comparative law history topics, we actually studied the real case law and had case studies to resolve (since a lot of modern European legal concepts have their roots in Roman law principles).

So we had exam questions like "you are a praetor and two men bring a donkey to you. One claims..." Etc. 

[The Brain]

Go on.

[Martinus]

Go on.

[Duque de Bragança]

Roman law was my favourite subject in college, by the way. Unlike other comparative law history topics, we actually studied the real case law and had case studies to resolve (since a lot of modern European legal concepts have their roots in Roman law principles).

So we had exam questions like "you are a praetor and two men bring a donkey to you. One claims..." Etc. 

Bonus points if you manage to slip in "ASINVS ASINVM FRICAT"?

[crazy canuck]

I would feel the same way if a doctor refused to treat the baby because, say, its parents were Southern Baptists, or Republican or black.

Although you would almost certainly be less hysterical about it. 

[Jacob]

So, being a murderer = being a child of a lesbian in your book? Or are you saying that only because some form of discrimination may be justified, any discrimination is equally justified?

basically. discrimination is discrimination. some discrimination is socially acceptable while other discrimination isn't. i'm under the assumption the argument is she's immoral not necessarily because of her beliefs but because she acted on her beliefs by refusing professional service. if this is the argument, then it should be equally immoral for criminal defense attorneys to reject certain clients.

That is not the argument, as far as I'm concerned.

The argument is that she should just have referred her potential patients on and kept her bigoted mouth shut.  Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).

Her dressing it up as some sort of "admirable ethical stance" on her part makes her not only rude and bigoted, but sanctimonious as well.

[garbon]

And if you want to talk about sanctimony, Jake is your man.

[Neil]

Legally unacceptable?

[alfred russel]

Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).

I think it should be legally unacceptable to refuse treatment, but it should never be legally unacceptable to explain the motivations for your actions.

[LaCroix]

That is not the argument, as far as I'm concerned.

The argument is that she should just have referred her potential patients on and kept her bigoted mouth shut.  Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).

Her dressing it up as some sort of "admirable ethical stance" on her part makes her not only rude and bigoted, but sanctimonious as well.

i agree that honesty isn't always the best policy. many people make rude comments all the time, though. and it's not illegal for a private person to deny service based on discrimination. laws prohibiting discrimination apply for employers with a certain number of employees, not private employees or small businesses. a doctor working alone may provide a service, but he can provide that service to anyone he wants. statutorily prohibiting him from making rude comments when rejecting patients would be an invasive attack on liberty.

[grumbler]

That is not the argument, as far as I'm concerned.

The argument is that she should just have referred her potential patients on and kept her bigoted mouth shut.  Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).

Her dressing it up as some sort of "admirable ethical stance" on her part makes her not only rude and bigoted, but sanctimonious as well.

Since you are relying on information not yet presented in the thread, you are either making up her statements out of whole cloth, or should share the source material where she lectured them (all we know is that she said that "I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice").  Either way, you are yourself coming off as sanctimonious as hell.

[grumbler]

And if you want to talk about sanctimony, Jake is your man.

[crazy canuck]

So, being a murderer = being a child of a lesbian in your book? Or are you saying that only because some form of discrimination may be justified, any discrimination is equally justified?

basically. discrimination is discrimination. some discrimination is socially acceptable while other discrimination isn't. i'm under the assumption the argument is she's immoral not necessarily because of her beliefs but because she acted on her beliefs by refusing professional service. if this is the argument, then it should be equally immoral for criminal defense attorneys to reject certain clients.

That is not the argument, as far as I'm concerned.

The argument is that she should just have referred her potential patients on and kept her bigoted mouth shut.  Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).

Her dressing it up as some sort of "admirable ethical stance" on her part makes her not only rude and bigoted, but sanctimonious as well.

You have the facts wrong.

She did just refer her patients on to another doctor and she did keep her "mouth shut'.  In fact she didn't even come into the clinic the day the couple was to see the new doctor -  to whom she had referred her patients.  It was only after the couple raised an issue over having been referred to another doctor that she wrote them a letter apologizing for not meeting with them in person and explaining she "felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients".

At no time did she "lecture about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them."  She did not lecture them nor did she have any communication with them before referring them to another doctor within the clinic.