Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby with Lesbian Parents

[InTheLight]

Oh boy. Is this showing the love of Christ?


DETROIT — Sitting in the pediatrician's office with their 6-day-old daughter, the two moms couldn't wait to meet the doctor they had picked out months before.

The Roseville, Mich., pediatrician — one of many they had interviewed — seemed the perfect fit: She took a holistic approach to treating children. She used natural oils and probiotics. And she knew they were lesbians.

But as Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn's first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a change of heart. After "much prayer," she decided that she couldn't treat their baby because they are lesbians.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...BlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

 

[Crabtownboy]

Her license should be yanked. The child should not be punished or not treated because of who or what her parents are or are not. It is ok to not approve of the two women, but that is no reason not to treat the child. She did take the Hippocratic Oath when she became a doctor. She should live up to that oath.

The modern Hippocratic oath:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
—Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html

 

[targus]

Her license should be yanked. The child should not be punished or not treated because of who or what her parents are or are not. It is ok to not approve of the two women, but that is no reason not to treat the child. She did take the Hippocratic Oath when she became a doctor. She should live up to that oath.

The modern Hippocratic oath:



.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html

Her license should be yanked? On what basis? She broke no law no matter how we may personally feel about her decision.

BTW - I too feel that she should treat the baby. The child did not ask to be in the living situation as it exists.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I honestly don't know if a doctor has the legal ability to refuse service like that. But I do know that they have a moral obligation to treat people, regardless.

 

[matt wade]

Good for the doctor. We aren't talking about letting an infant die here. The child isn't in a critical situation. The "couple" can go on and find another doctor that agrees with their life style.

This is a good first lesson for the "parents"...they just purposefully made a child's life more difficult than it needs to be by their lifestyle choice.

 

[just-want-peace]

The child should not be punished or not treated because of who or what her parents are or are not.

This sounds an awful lot like an ANTI-ABORTION statement; I'm floored at the source!!!!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Good for the doctor. We aren't talking about letting an infant die here. The child isn't in a critical situation. The "couple" can go on and find another doctor that agrees with their life style.

It certainly violates "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

This is a good first lesson for the "parents"...they just purposefully made a child's life more difficult than it needs to be by their lifestyle choice.

And how does this "good first lesson" make Christ of any interest to them?

Would you rather the child be in an orphanage, or in a foster home?

Are there orphanages in existence these days?

 

[SaggyWoman]

That is a crying shame.

 

[ShagNappy]

Tacky, yes. Illegal? LOL The child was "treated," in the very same office. Another pediatrician took the patient. No one was denied anything, the family just got a different doctor than they planned to see.

The Hippocratic Oath is a voluntary statement that is not required by medical schools or any state/federal law.

There is no basis for any license yanking to happen.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/28142401/doctor-refuses-treatment-of-same-sex-couples-baby

 

[matt wade]

It certainly violates "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

If I was practicing an sinful lifestyle, I would have people stand strong on their morals and refuse to do business with me. It doesn't violate anything for me.

And how does this "good first lesson" make Christ of any interest to them?

Would you rather the child be in an orphanage, or in a foster home?

Are there orphanages in existence these days?

Yes, I would rather the child be in an orphanage or in a foster home than be raised by lesbians.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I think it's disgusting. They will REALLY be open to Christ now, right?!?!

This is totally different from the baker who wouldn't make a gay wedding cake. The doctor isn't doing anything to promote homosexuality by taking that baby as a patient.

Why not take the baby as a patient and when the moms come in - develop a good rapport and then relationship with them and introduce them to Christ.

Illegal? - I don't think so. Hatefulness and misguided self-righteousness? - yes.

 

[matt wade]

I think too many people around here let their emotions regarding a baby overrun their morals.

We should not encourage the homosexual lifestyle at all. Period.

 

[Revmitchell]

OK so it doesn't appear that there was a medical emergency here. It appears this was a standard check up. This is a non issue.

 

[Salty]

...the family just got a different doctor than they planned to see...

I trust you are using the term "family" very loosely

 

[ShagNappy]

I trust you are using the term "family" very loosely

Yeah, I meant to put family in quotes.

 

[Aaron]

Good for the doctor. We aren't talking about letting an infant die here. The child isn't in a critical situation. The "couple" can go on and find another doctor that agrees with their life style.

This is a good first lesson for the "parents"...they just purposefully made a child's life more difficult than it needs to be by their lifestyle choice.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Aaron]

I think it's disgusting. They will REALLY be open to Christ now, right?!?!

This is totally different from the baker who wouldn't make a gay wedding cake. The doctor isn't doing anything to promote homosexuality by taking that baby as a patient.

Why not take the baby as a patient and when the moms come in - develop a good rapport and then relationship with them and introduce them to Christ.

Illegal? - I don't think so. Hatefulness and misguided self-righteousness? - yes.

See Rev's post.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Alright then, let's have the same doctor refuse to treat children whose parents are obese or liars or adulterers.


I don't say that I'm shocked anymore on the BB, but I kind of am today.

 

[matt wade]

Alright then, let's have the same doctor refuse to treat children whose parents are obese or liars or adulterers.

I fully support a doctor choosing to refuse scheduled treatment for any reason they wish.

 

[Rolfe]

Alright then, let's have the same doctor refuse to treat children whose parents are obese or liars or adulterers.


I don't say that I'm shocked anymore on the BB, but I kind of am today.

Agree. It is just wrong, and it is surprising that so many do not see it as such.

To those who think that the he doctor is right: Explain to me the sense of punishing the child for the sin of the parents. As far as I can tell, the baby has not sinned.