The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.
Latest Activity: on Saturday
Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Apr 28.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Apr 12.
Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Apr 10.
Started by Steph S. Apr 7.
Started by Jacob Dreiling. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Mar 27.
Started by Neon Genesis. Last reply by Grinning Cat Mar 27.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Susan Stanko Mar 17.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 11.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Feb 11.
Started by Pat. Last reply by sk8eycat Feb 10.
Rick Santorum on Bruce Jenner: ‘If He Says He’s A Woman, Then He’s A Woman’
Justice Ginsburg Eviscerates The Case Against Marriage Equality In Just Five Sentences
Watch Same-Sex Couples Take On Haters Outside Of The Supreme Court
The Lawyer Defending Discrimination In The Supreme Court May Have Just Talked Himself Out Of Victory
9 Signs That Love Is Winning At The Supreme Court
Loren, I agree with every word you wrote. I especially like your comments about contraception, family planning, and the role of a doctor in these decisions.
A doctor who doesn't provide family planning services or doesn't want to serve GLBT adults has the obligation to provide the names of doctors who do, at the very least. Don't leave people hanging as she did.
About the letter from the doctor denying services to the baby,
1. It wasn't an apology for not providing care; it was an apology for not delivering the message herself.
2. The doctor gave no indication as to whether she would or would not provide services for the baby. The parents clearly can reject any offer from her if they have other options. One could understand and support their not wanting to use her services.
3. The doctor surely has fallen for the "free will" agreement between herself and her God. The story goes that God gave the individual free will. The choice was whether the supplicant would suit god's need for obedience or not ... not that the doctor had free will as to whether to treat a child or not.
4. It surprises me that a physician has any trouble at all with gender identification. Doesn't medical training cover that topic?
If she were willing to spend the rest of her life studying wild animals in their natural habitats....JUST studying, not treating, she might learn that there is nothing "unnatural" about same-sex pairings, for one thing. IF she is capable of learning anything that isn't in her Bronze Age holey book.
OR...put a "Nothing Fails Like Prayer" bumper sticker on her car while she's not looking.
OR....maybe she could be taught to say, "Ya wan' fries wi dat?" into the drive-thru microphone.
No Felaine. McDonald's should not hire her. She'd still have to be around children, and she has already amply demonstrated she can't be trusted with them.
As to becoming a veterinarian, if she's willing to let an infant flounder without care, why would you trust her with an animal?
My suggestion for a new career. Maybe a recycling sorting bin at the landfill. She can sort the used from the unused condoms.
I was going to suggest that the doctor, who already KNEW the parents of the child were 2 women before the baby was born...she interviewed them 6 months before the birth...become a veterinarian. But that's a much more difficult field than pediatrics.
Maybe she could get a job at McDonalds....as a clown.
The doctor's actions amount to no more than religiously sanctioned bigotry. If he had no knowledge regarding the parents or if one of the parents came in with the child, he could easily have thought that she was a single mother. Done and done.Those who promote kind of crap, along with related issues such as the failure to service birth control prescriptions for religious reasons, need to be called on for it until they either are willing to change their stance or find another profession. This is SERVICE we're talking about, something I take very damned seriously, and if they are not willing to serve, they don't belong in the business.
Apparently the good doctor did take her hypocritical oath seriously:
On February 9, four months after the discrimination took place, the Contreras family finally received a hand-written letter from [Dr.] Roi. She apologized, but explained, “After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients.” She admitted that she should have spoken to them that day instead of leaving a colleague to break the news, but she provided no clear explanation for the treatment. “Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice,” Roi wrote, “and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice.”
This is what Hitchens said so powerfully,
Hitchens: Why fight religion?
For the doctor who would not take as a patient the child of same-sex parents, confusing loyalty to dogma before her hippocratic oath tells the parents all they need to know ... this doctor is not for them.
Just another example of what Steven Weinstein said,
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2015 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.