Susan Estrich asks "Does a doctor have a right to deny treatment to a patient because of her own religious views? Or does a patient have a right to be free from what she sees as wrongful discrimination that consists of denying to her medical treatment that is provided to others?"

Quote:

---

Lupita Benitez, now 36 and, with her partner of 18 years, the mother of three children, brought the lawsuit against two Christian physicians in San Diego County who refused to inseminate her with donor sperm when she was trying to get pregnant in 1999. She claims that she was denied treatment afforded to other women because of the doctors' personal views about lesbians becoming mothers; attorneys for the doctors claim that it was the fact that Benitez wasn't married, not that she was a lesbian, that led the doctors to refuse treatment to her and that in any event, their religious views give them a right to deny treatment they don't approve of.

---

Estrich then offers an answer to her questions:

Quote:

---

Here is my answer to the question of whether doctors who don't believe in abortion should be required to perform abortions: You shouldn't become a gynecologist if you don't want to provide gynecological services, any more than doctors who adhere to Christian Science and disapprove of transfusions should become hematologists, although reasonable people certainly can disagree on that point. But the idea that doctors should be able to discriminate among their patients as to who gets services and who doesn't — based not on medical conditions or necessity, but on the doctors' views, whether religious or otherwise — is an effort to cloak discrimination with a claim to constitutional protection that it does not deserve.

---

Seems to me that Estrich wants to reserve the right for people to decide what sexual relationships and sexual practices they want to engage in and are ethical, but doctors can't decide what treatments are ethical. Does she have a point or not? Should private physicians have the right to decide who they'll treat or what treatments they'll provide? Should a physician be required to provide abortions, or say, assisted suicide?

My own insignificant opinion is that no one should be forced to provide services that would violate his/her conscience. Let the seeker find someone who will provide the service willingly. I know that as a minister of the Gospel, I would absolutely refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

My own insignificant opinion is that no one should be forced to provide services that would violate his/her conscience. Let the seeker find someone who will provide the service willingly. I know that as a minister of the Gospel, I would absolutely refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex.

---

Hello minister. There is no such thing as marriage between people of the same sex. There is what is called a "same sex union." In many cases though companies are providing insurance to same sex couples even without a recognized ceremony of sorts. For my two cents worth, I think every American needs insurance, regardless.

I don't think your opinion is insignificant. This is one of those things that drives me nuts about the left. Seems they want the right to exercise their conscience and the right to force me to violate mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Hello minister. There is no such thing as marriage between people of the same sex. There is what is called a "same sex union." In many cases though companies are providing insurance to same sex couples even without a recognized ceremony of sorts. For my two cents worth, I think every American needs insurance, regardless.

---

Wow, we find an area of agreement again finally. But what about the questions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Wow, we find an area of agreement again finally. But what about the questions?

---

Steve, I often don't find truth in the far left or extreme right. I'm OK with any doctor, based on principles, to make a decision not to perform service based on his or her religion. The ramifications though, if it's not a private clinic, is that they will be answering to their employer. Which in many cases will result in verbal discipline, physical suspensions, and eventually being let go. That's the nice way of saying you're fired. Then the doctor can apply for Workman's Compensation if it's not proven to be for insubordination. Nevada, is a right to work state. I could tell my employer that I'm taking off every shabbos and in return they can tell me to hit the door and not look back. Back in the day when I wore a beard, yarmulke, and was far more observant to my Faiths traditions, I did bust heads with many employer. Nobody should forfeit standing ground for their valued principles... just be willing to pay the price.

Is the doctor in private practice or employed in a clinic . If the doctor is in a private practice the doctor should have the ability to decide which services the doctor will perform. If not ,and the doctor works under the policy of the place of employment then the choice id to follow the policy or resign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Steve, I often don't find truth in the far left or extreme right. I'm OK with any doctor, based on principles, to make a decision not to perform service based on his or her religion. The ramifications though, if it's not a private clinic, is that they will be answering to their employer. Which in many cases will result in verbal discipline, physical suspensions, and eventually being let go. That's the nice way of saying you're fired. Then the doctor can apply for Workman's Compensation if it's not proven to be for insubordination. Nevada, is a right to work state. I could tell my employer that I'm taking off every shabbos and in return they can tell me to hit the door and not look back. Back in the day when I wore a beard, yarmulke, and was far more observant to my Faiths traditions, I did bust heads with many employer. Nobody should forfeit standing ground for their valued principles...just be willing to pay the price.

---

Exactly. I don't believe Estrich designated whether or the doctors were in a private practice or not - just that they were Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

is the doctor in private practice or employed in a clinic . If the doctor is in a private practice the doctor should have the ability to decide which services the doctor will perform. If not ,and the doctor works under the policy of the place of employment then the choice id to follow the policy or resign.

---

Seems simple enough to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Susan Estrich asks "Does a doctor have a right to deny treatment to a patient because of her own religious views? Or does a patient have a right to be free from what she sees as wrongful discrimination that consists of denying to her medical treatment that is provided to others?"



Estrich then offers an answer to her questions:



Seems to me that Estrich wants to reserve the right for people to decide what sexual relationships and sexual practices they want to engage in and are ethical, but doctors can't decide what treatments are ethical. Does she have a point or not? Should private physicians have the right to decide who they'll treat or what treatments they'll provide? Should a physician be required to provide abortions, or say, assisted suicide?

---

Do doctors have the same first Amendment right to freely express their religion?

Did the lesbian not know that they could always get a second opinion?

Required? Abortion and suicide "deliberately harm" life and are not exactly part of the hippocratic oath.

Do doctors tell lawyers how to practice law?

Actually no, doctors do not have this right, drug stores have already been sued over this issue, ( morning after abortion pills) and they lost and have to provide it, even though the store or druggests personal views are against it.

Citizens in America have a lot less "rights" because of the desires of special interest groups.

You are correct Fr. Chuck... my position that I stated was the way I thought it should be.

Hello:

I thought the druggists won...

If the state gives you a license, then the state can dictate what services you WILL do and what you will NOT do. I think it's fine for a druggist to abstain from immoral behavior if he so chooses in his OWN life. I do NOT think it's fine for him to impose his views upon his customers.

As a matter of fact, I'll bet the state issues licenses based upon how many drug stores are in a certain area. That could result in only ONE drug store in a little teeny town - and no other town for miles and miles...

Are you going to tell me, that this druggist has the right to make his customers go without a legal and prescribed drug?? I understand that YOU might think the druggist has that right, and he really does. But, the state has the right to take his license away for doing it, and giving it to someone who will serve the needs of his community instead of himself.

IF a business WASN'T required to be licensed, then of course, the business could sell anything they want to whomever they want.

IF these Christian doctors are licensed by the state, the state can require them to perform certain functions. And, it SHOULD.

Do any of you have licenses?? Can you violate the terms of YOUR license because you object to some of them?? I don't think you can. Can a bus driver refuse to ride with a black person because he's offended by them??

excon

I am not aware of a requirement for a license to operate a drug store. A pharmacist needs a professional license to dispense drugs . I have no doubt there is quid pro quo like having a pharmacy degree.
Here are NY State's requirements :
To be licensed as a pharmacist in New York State you must:

• be of good moral character;
• be at least 21 years of age;
• meet education, examination, and experience requirements; and
• be a United States citizen or alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (Alien Registration Card /USCIS I-551 Status - "Green Card").
  NYS Pharmacy - License Requirements

beyond that they don't tell the pharmacist what he can sell or dispense.

Hello again, tom:

I suggest that a druggist is regulated a little more than that. For example, a druggist is required to be licensed by the DEA. They have a few requirements. Actually, they have a HUGE manual:

Pharmacist's Manual - Table of Contents

He's regulated by other agencies, too.

excon

Yup a huge manual all right . If you don't mind ,I won't go sifting through it now to try and find the section that compels the pharmacist to dispense medications he is morally opposed to .

Actually this was about doctors, not pharmacists. Still, I beg to differ, ex but I'm sure that doesn't surprise you. Bars are licensed by the state, restaurants are generally licensed by the local health department, attorneys are licensed by the state, heck, we're licensed by the state to service fire equipment. Are all of us required to offer service to everyone, or forced into practices that are against our conscience? No, absolutely not.

Bars choose to serve or not serve, restaurants choose the right to refuse service to anyone, attorneys decline to take cases and if we don't want to inspect someone's extinguishers or fire alarm we don't. Doctors and clinics can and do "fire" patients all the time. In fact, Texas law allows for an employee of a hospital or clinic - not just a private practice - to refuse to participate in abortions, but apparently not in dispensing EC.

Quote:

---

§ 103.001. RIGHT TO OBJECT. A physician, nurse, staff member, or employee of a hospital or other health care facility who objects to directly or indirectly performing or participating in an abortion procedure may not be required to directly or indirectly perform or participate in the procedure.

Acts 1999, 76th Leg. ch. 388, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


§ 103.002. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED. (a) A hospital or health care facility may not discriminate against a physician, nurse, staff member, or employee, or an applicant for one of those positions, who refuses to perform or participate in an abortion procedure.

---

At least 4 states have adopted "conscience clauses" for pharmacists and many more have proposed legislation. The usual caveat is that they are required to refer the patient elsewhere or have another pharmacist fill the prescription. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with forcing a pharmacist or physician to dispense drugs or provide treatments that violate their conscience - especially when it comes to those the objector believes will cause harm to another person.

Should a pharmacist should be required to dispense drugs for assisted suicide, capital punishment or Viagra for convicted sex offenders? Should a doctor should be forced to administer the lethal cocktail to a condemned prisoner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

a) Should a pharmacist should be required to dispense drugs for assisted suicide, b) capital punishment or c) Viagra for convicted sex offenders? d) Should a doctor should be forced to administer the lethal cocktail to a condemned prisoner?

---

Hello Steve:

a) If assisted suicide is legal, yes. In Oregon?? Absolutely!
b) Where do you think they get the drugs to kill the condemned? I think they buy 'em at a drug store.
c) Yes, his customers criminal history aren't his business.
d) If he's working for the prison, yes.

Should McDonald's be able to refuse to serve you fat? Should your children's lunch be gone through because eating bad foods might be against the teachers conscience? Why isn't a teachers conscience important when you want her to teach ID, even if she objects on moral grounds? Should cigarettes be made illegal?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

If he's working for the prison, yes.

---

So you do offer an exception?

This is not so much an issue of morality as it is of equality. I find it so strange that people fail to see that. At a point in time, a business could refuse to provide service to someone because they were black. Not anymore. That would seem obsurd to most, correct? But we can discriminate against other people who are 'different' from the majority... namely, in this case, homosexuals. By making discrimination a 'moral' issue, and claiming that NOT discriminating would be against someone's 'religious beliefs', it's condoned. And saying that someone who is in the profession of providing a service has the RIGHT to refuse that service to someone because of their own unfounded biased beliefs about whether they can or cannot parent children (when all studies to date have shown no significant difference between gay parents and straight parents), that is blatant discrimination. No matter how you try to dress it up, that's what it is.

I'll be honest, I'm torn about this.

On the one hand, if it's a private doctor's office, and the objection is really based on being a single parent (not a protected class), I see how refusing service is possible. If, however, it's NOT a private clinic, then the doctor should provide the services/procedures as dictated by the company he/she works for.

But then, as usual, excon makes some good points too. :)

I don't think I want to weigh in just yet... think I'll sit back and read...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margog85

This is not so much an issue of morality as it is of equality. I find it so strange that people fail to see that. At a point in time, a business could refuse to provide service to someone because they were black. Not anymore. That would seem obsurd to most, correct? But we can discriminate against other people who are 'different' from the majority... namely, in this case, homosexuals. By making discrimination a 'moral' issue, and claiming that NOT discriminating would be against someone's 'religious beliefs', it's condoned. And saying that someone who is in the profession of providing a service has the RIGHT to refuse that service to someone because of their own unfounded biased beliefs about whether they can or cannot parent children (when all studies to date have shown no significant difference between gay parents and straight parents), that is blatant discrimination. No matter how you try to dress it up, that's what it is.

---

Everyone discriminates, period. And those who champion "equality" the most are often the most discriminating. What Estrich doesn't do is state whether these "Christian" doctors are in a private practice or not. If they are, they should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they want - or no reason at all. As I said before, doctors "fire" patients all the time - that is one's prerogative in a private business. If however they work for a taxpayer funded hospital or government agency then no, they don't have that right to discriminate. If my right to discriminate as an individual is removed then this society is worthless.

"they should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they want "

I guess this is where we disagree then. I strongly believe that minority groups should be treated with the same respect as any other group. And that those minority groups should be protected under the law against discriminatory actions.

Do you think a doctor has the right to refuse treatment to a seriously ill child because he or she is biracial? What if that doctor believes that biracial children are not deserving of medical treatment? That the world would be better off without them, and so refuses to provide life-saving treatment. Is he within his right to do this? What if it results in the death of the child? If the doctor personally believes he is morally right in his choice, should the parents of the child have nothing to say against him? No legal recourse? Doesn't it make sense for there to be some system of accountability to ensure that people are receiving fair treatment from those that they seek help from?

Granted, this example is more extreme than the one at hand... the couple could go elsewhere to receive the treatment they are seeking... but if we endorse discrimination on any grounds, we open ourselves up to allowing discrimination of all kinds. If we are all entitled to discriminate in any way we want to, no matter who we hurt or what kind of ignorance our discrimination is based upon... that would lead to complete chaos, wouldn't it?

Clearly, not a direction most would opt to go in.

if it's a private doctor's office, and the objection is really based on being a single parent (not a protected class), I see how refusing service is possible.

But that's impossible to be the case here- she has a partner of 18 years. And if "attorneys for the doctors claim that it was the fact that Benitez wasn't married", then maybe they should permit them to marry so that they can have equal rights with married couples after 18 years of commitment to each other? Are the doctors pro-gay marriage and advocating that we permit gay people to marry so that children are brought into homes with married couples? Or are they using that as an excuse to discriminate against what is, as you said, a protected class.

I think it's pretty clear, from what's been put up by the op anyway, that there's more to it in this instance than them not being married.

If we have reached the point in this country when we are not free to live according to our conciences, then we have lost a very important liberty. Before you chastise me, I am not talking about anyone believing his conscience is telling him to cause harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margog85

if it's a private doctor's office, and the objection is really based on being a single parent (not a protected class), I see how refusing service is possible.

But that's impossible to be the case here- she has a partner of 18 years. And if "attorneys for the doctors claim that it was the fact that Benitez wasn't married", then maybe they should permit them to marry so that they can have equal rights with married couples after 18 years of committment to eachother? Are the doctors pro-gay marriage and advocating that we permit gay people to marry so that children are brought into homes with married couples? Or are they using that as an excuse to discriminate against what is, as you said, a protected class.

I think it's pretty clear, from what's been put up by the op anyway, that there's more to it in this instance than them not being married.

---

Well now you're getting into a deeper issue - gay rights. While I think it's more likely the refusal to inseminate was based on sexual preferance, if, in court, the prosecution can't PROVE that, and the defense can "prove" it was based on marital status, well, marital status isn't a protected class. Case closed. If the doctors have inseminated even one un-married woman in the past, they'll blow their cover story and it will be obvious the refusal was based on sexual preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

they should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they want - or no reason at all

---

Speech, it really surprises me you would say such a thing. You don't have the right to discriminate for "whatever reason", that's why we have protected classes. Can the doctors hang a sign on the door that says, "No Texans Allowed"? Yes - they are guilty of nothing. But can they hang a sign that says, "No gays allowed" or "No blacks allowed" or "No Jews allowed"? No, they can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

If my right to discriminate as an individual is removed then this society is worthless.

---

You can personally discriminate against anyone you want in your personal life. You can refuse to speak to Hispanic people, even going to far as refusing to go through a grocery store check out lane because a Mexican is running it. You don't have to say "excuse me" if you step on a woman's foot. But if you own a business you can't refuse to hire Hispanics or women. And you certainly can't, as a business, refuse to serve them based on the fact that they are Hispanic or female.

What's the big deal here? Warm towels, a sterile gravy spoon and turkey baster and I can have her impregnated in 15 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

What's the big deal here? Warm towels, a sterile gravy spoon and turkey baster and I can have her impregnated in 15 minutes.

---

You might laugh, but there was a couple on Oprah a few years ago and the wife was HIV positive. They couldn't afford artificial insemination, so... you guessed it... turkey baster time! And yes, it worked!

I'm not kidding. I grew up in San Diego and it was common knowledge that the turkey baster was the way to go for the Lesbos. Two gay guys would donate to keep it annonymos. Nothing new.

Tomder55 summed it up just about perfectly. Drs. Frequently decide to refuse to do certain procedures or treatments, because in their judgment the treatment is dangerous or ineffective, and they don't want to be involved with it.
I believe hospitals (and hospital sponsored clinics) where emergency treatment must be given present a different situation. A person brought in needing a blood transfusion to save his life shouldn't be left to die because the Dr. in charge doesn't believe in blood transfusions because of the Drs. Religious beliefs. I guess it is a distinction between private and public facilities, the private office has the opportunity to know what the patient needs when they call for an appointment. If the Dr. doesn't do the procedure they want they have the opportunity to find somebody who does. Many hospitals receive some taxpayer funds, they are designed for walk-ins and emergencies and they should be capable of providing the latest state-of-the-art medical care, unfettered by any provider's religious beliefs. Technical preferences (cast or no cast type decisions) are based on medical training and knowledge and are acceptable opinions, subject to review by the medical director. As said above in some earlier posts, if you don't agree, don't take the job; if you took the job and now disagree, resign.

But refusing to do a procedure because you object to the procedure (such as abortion) is different than refusing to treat a patient because of their religious beliefs/skin color/marital status/sexual orientation/nationality, etc. These doctors don't object to performing fertility services, they object to performing them on single mothers or, possibly, to lesbians. There's a big difference.

You know what... that is a very good point .One that will make me rethink my position. If the procedure is performed by that doctor routinely then the doctor has no basis for refusing to do it for all patients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

you know what.......that is a very good point .One that will make me rethink my position. If the procedure is performed by that doctor routinely then the doctor has no basis for refusing to do it for all patients.

---

Aw shucks... you're makin' me blush, tom! :o

Hello again:

I think you religious folks ought to keep your religion to yourselves. This is just another attempt to foist your religious views on the rest of us. If you perform a public service, then perform it for the public. If you don't want to work for the public, then DON'T.

If I, or any other atheist, started injecting OUR beliefs into OUR work, your church's would be plowed under. If I was you, I'd leave well enough alone. You don't know what Pandora's Box you are opening. I can promise you this: you won't like it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

I think you religious folks ought to keep your religion to yourselves. This is just another attempt to foist your religious views on the rest of us. If you perform a public service, then perform it for the public. If you don't want to work for the public, then DON'T.

If I, or any other atheist, started injecting OUR beliefs into OUR work, your church's would be plowed under. If I was you, I'd leave well enough alone. You don't know what Pandora's Box you are opening. I can promise you this: you won't like it.

excon

---

Dude, you must be really high today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

I think you religious folks ought to keep your religion to yourselves. This is just another attempt to foist your religious views on the rest of us. If you perform a public service, then perform it for the public. If you don't want to work for the public, then DON'T.

If I, or any other atheist, started injecting OUR beliefs into OUR work, your church's would be plowed under. If I was you, I'd leave well enough alone. You don't know what Pandora's Box you are opening. I can promise you this: you won't like it.

excon

---

Great post Ex. It won't sink in though!

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”



- bonus points if you can name who said this :p

WOW... I get the bonus points but will not say who it is yet.Maybe one of the few things I agree with from the speaker.

Tom,


I was surprised to find this too. I think it is from 2006. Saw in the WSJ 6/10

I'm not surprised. I've found the guy is more fair minded and balanced than many of the other candidates from within his own party, as well as the opposition party.