This is playing with ‘conscience’, even while your feet are in the stirrups. It’s utter bullsh*t. This case goes back to 2001 (I blogged about it here), when a lesbian couple, Guadalupe Benitez and her partner, Joanne Clark, wanted to have a child and went to the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Groupi n Encinitas, CA for artificial insemination.
North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group refused to provide intrauterine insemination services to Guadalupe Benitez, citing two reasons — 1) she’s not married (though she has a partner and they are in a domestic partnership in a state that recognizes them), and 2) she’s a lesbian. This, the clinic said, violated the religious beliefs of the practictioners.
This is back in the news again as ABC revisits the discrimination same-sex couples receive when the “religious beliefs” clause trumps health services.
“In general, religious beliefs or gender orientation should not interfere with the rights of an individual to reproduce,” said Dr. Sherman Silber, director of the Infertility Center of St. Louis at St. Luke’s Hospital in St. Louis, Mo. “If a doctor doesn’t want to care for a patient, the doctor has a right to decide who he or she is and isn’t going to take care of. But that conflicts with the discrimination issue.”…A patient has the right to receive the best care possible from their chosen physician, said Dr. Siva Subramanian, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at Georgetown University Hospital. But a physician has the right to personal beliefs and morals that may influence what they are willing to do medically.
Subramanian pointed out, however, that a physician’s beliefs may conflict with state and federal laws governing medical practice — laws that a licensed physician has agreed to comply with.
In all cases, a physician should make relevant personal beliefs known to patients during the first meeting, Subramanian said. And in cases where personal beliefs conflict with the law, physicians should be prepared to accept the consequences of standing by their beliefs.
By the way, in the case of Benitez and Clark, they were forced to go to North Coast because her insurance didn’t cover any other facility — add another case for health care reform to the pile, so turning them away at the start, an option open to doctors to avoid the conflict, would have been a civil rights violation.
“It would not have been legal to turn her away at the first visit,” Pizer said. “This was compounded and made much worse by the doctors’ repeated promises that [Guadalupe] would receive the treatment she needed. It was a long series of broken promises. You cannot have somebody you are taking care of and in the middle of it, not give infertility treatment unless you told the patient clearly and specifically before you take them on as a patient that their [treatment] will not go beyond a certain point,” Subramanian said. “As long as you’ve got a license, you have an obligation and that supersedes moral grounds.”
From my POV, if you cannot reconcile your faith and professional practice, you need to find another line of work. And if you want to really make it clear for prospective customers so as not to waste everyone’s time, put a sign of the fish on your door and let it all hang out.



18 Comments



What’s the difference?
And on the other hand…Repeatedly making statements that treatment is forth coming while accepting payment for services and requesting further appoinments and then service is outright denied is fraud on both the patient and the insurance company.
So, where are the police? Raiding another gay bar?
Atheist Doctors Could Be Assholes Too!“So you’re here for cancer treatment……OH, I see you’re also a christian. Sorry! Can’t help you! According to you anywhere but the doctor’s office, science and medicine is the devil. So you better get your ass home, put on your Snuggie, get on your knees, and pray, pray, pray. And then pray some more. God is supposed to be your doctor, not me! Have a nice day.”.
Aryan Nation Doctors can then refuse mixed race peoplewrong!
You treat the patient in front of you.
If you do inseminations, you do NOT get to discriminate.
If you feel that the proceedure is immoral, fine, don’t do it
But if you feel that someone is too immoral to receive the proceedure, that is just wrong.
My new faith, the First Church of the Lesbian Blogmistress, says that I cannot prevent straight depressed evangelicals from committing suicide since it is “Her will” that the evil ones be denied treatment and die.
I wonder how that will work as a defense before a medical board?
Should I resist making a funny on this signage?Yes, this signage occured in a tragic period of our countries histories
But…y’all know where my filthy mind is going…lol
[REWIND]Should I resist making a funny on this signage?
Yes, this signage occured in a tragic period of our country’s history.
But…y’all know where my filthy mind is going…lol
Wonder no more
I imagine that someone will, in baffled seriousness, object, “but that’s not a real religion!”
After 30+ years of research, I have concluded that life is a Monty Python sketch.
I’ve gotten the same sh*t with doctors and dentists with AIDS phobiaIf you are a medical professional….act like a PROFESSIONAL.
Even a CPR coach who came to teach employees showed overt AIDS phobia concerning mouth to mouth recessitation. She was a snotty suburban sow, and mentioned when ever she was in the city she carried her mouth protector device because of DISEASE.
Yeah ya dumb f*ck, nobody in lily white suburbs has any disease.
Moral Grounds, My PatootieI went through this 12 years ago in Lincoln, Nebraska. I had to network through 10 doctors before I found one who would inseminate me.
It still chaps me to think that they said to me that it was against the hippocratic oath to do so.
I was hoping that things are different now.
Indeed.Great wisdom in humor…
I couldn’t say it better myself But then again, so-called christians are all a bunch of frauds. I suppose the old feed the hungry and shelter the homeless is gone and replaced by hate teh gay for profit at the same time claiming to be a non-profit.
Special rights?
Yeah. And?
All kinds of people have religious beliefs. So the fuck what? The anti-discrimination laws exist to protect the rest of us from them. Using this same argument, it could be claimed that EVERYONE who owns a business should be free to discriminate. We all know that isn’t permitted. Why should doctors be given special considerations that aren’t extended to plumbers, refrigerator repairmen, bus drivers and everyone else in the country? Does the fact that they’ve taken an oath to an imaginary Greek demigod somehow put them above the law?
simple math….Physician / Religious Belief = Witchdoctor
“Get the scientists working on tube technology immediately! Chop chop, let’s go!”
Shhhhhhhhhhhh!
Are there cases of doctors denying insemination…to unmarried straight couples or single straight women? I just googled it and I couldn’t find any examples.
the thing isSupreme Court has never spoken out on “how true” a belief is or how sincerely it is held, so if “true enough” veneer is applied… this is possible.
The issue is though that all non-fanatical doctors know that they have obligations to all people in need of their services, not just other non-fanatics.
Agreed, but about the Bertrand Russel quote…QScribe,
I agree whole-heartedly with your take on this. Separation of Church and State is a necessary guard against the tyranny of whoever currently has the village’s ears, mouth and strong-arm-of-the-law, from any group, for any group.
I do take exception though with the Bertrand Russel quote. While short, to a point and memorable, it is false. Either Mr. Russel truly couldn’t remember, or had never actually read, the fairly well-known story in the Gospel which Luke relates, in Chapter 2:46-47 and 2:52 – “After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers…. And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favour.”
Sure sounds like the Gospel of Luke (the Physician!) is praising intelligence, to me! What the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” are currently saying is another kettle of “fish” entirely, and only reflects a villager’s individual prejudices, wrapped in disguise! Society, beware of those who wear such disguises!
I personally don’t believe the right-wing keyboard chorus about much of anything, so why should I believe them when they say they are Christian? And why should anyone else believe them when they call themselves Christian, either? They are abusing a word, as they have abused so many words, for their own ends. That it means abusing an entire faith has never meant anything to them.
The abusive forces of conservatism have been active throughout all of recorded history, in every civilization and in every society that has every existed. Ours is different only in that, in a singular, historic, scrap of paper, we finally banished one of their tricks. They have been trying to get it back ever since.
They are most definitely not Christian, and I wouldn’t even give them the “sign of the fish” that Pam would, unless it were wrapped for delivery in yellowed newspaper… if I could only find a newspaper around the house these days…
Respectfully yours!
I see no point to arguing about who is or isn’t a Christian.As far as I’m concerned, all the Christians in the world can be left to fight that out among themselves.
I have to observe, though, that as any number of commenters here have pointed out before, the way the right-wingers treat gay people is perfectly consistent with the way the Christian church has treated us for two millennia.
Anything pro-gay in Christianity is a very recent development, at best.
And as for the Russell quote, once again, I see no point in arguing about the mythical motives of mythical characters. And at any rate, you’re doing what Christians always do: pointing to one little passage in a thousand page book and ignoring the rest.