This is a good one.

Go to:

<link>

The California Supreme Court has ruled that medical professionals may not refuse to treat people on the basis of sexual preference. They feel that it falls under anti-discrimination laws that also covers gender, disability, age, etc.

The lawsuit that led to this involved a lesbian couple who sued a clinic for giving one of them all the correct drugs and treatment prior to artificial insemination, but refused to do the procedure because it was "against his religion". He told her she'd have to do that part at home.

She sued. She won.

As goes California, so goes the nation. I hope that there is a similar ruling against pharmacists who deny women legal prescriptions for birth control and refuse to dispense Plan B.

I think a person hired to do a job should be expected to do what they were hired for. if doing part of that job conflicts with personal beliefs, then find another job.

It's a very fine line. Unless there is advance knowledge and equal opportunity to get the same treatment elsewhere, it doesn't seem right for the doctors to pick and choose. Equal meaning they can get exactly the same care at the other place, without undue disadvantage over the original place. It would be almost impossible to consider each case individually as to whether the other clinic also carried their insurance, was as easy to get to, and many similar factors. However, with the one doctor, who referred them elsewhere - to a place they were able to get what they wanted - it seems rather pushy for the couple to have sued.

I do think doctors should have some right on elective procedures to be able to inform patients in advance as to whether or not they would be willing to perform certain procedures. The doctors' original objection seems to have been that the woman wasn't married, which became actionable after the incident for which they got sued.

It's tough when one's profession and one's ethics clash, regardless of which one thinks should trump. Politicians get to do this all the time, though, by only enforcing those laws with which they agree, or appointing underlings who are likely to do so.

Sorry 'Neato, not buying it. People in any profession don't get to discriminate.

If the doctor had said "I won't treat blacks because I think there are too many of them in this city." Would you say the same thing? Would he have the right to say that and refuse IVF to a black couple? What if they were Hispanic? How about Muslim?

Refusing to treat this lady because she is gay is the same thing. Exactly the same. There are no hairs to split.

As for being "pushy" by suing, well what was she supposed to do? She wanted a perfectly ordinary medical treatment. I'm glad someone had the guts to do it. More people should.

Where would it end?

Should someone refuse to sell twinkies to overweight people?

Should someone refuse to sell soda to kids?

See, that's the probelm. Even saying it up front really isn't enough, just as "No Blacks Allowed" wasn't sufficient back before the Civil Rights movement.

It's just kind of weird how our society has to regulate ethical standards. I agree a pharmacist shouldn't be allowed to refuse a prescription to one patient that he will write for another. But should he be permitted simply not to stock that drug at all?

Can a plastic surgeon refuse cosmetic surgery on people having vanity work done, and only work on people with actual problems, like major scars or cleft palates? Who decides what is or isn't an actual problem?

Should a bar owner be permitted to allow smoking in his private establishment, even provided he put a sign on the door stating, "Smoking Allowed", so those offended may stay away? What about a cab driver, or a motel owner?

It's so easy to go over the deep end either direction. The guy who figured out how to separate plasma bled to death because he was sent to the "black" hospital, instead of to the closest white one. Obviously, that's way too far in one direction.

But if some guy wanted to mow lawns only of people who worshipped the flying spaghetti monster, should he be allowed to? Could people not mow their own lawns, hire someone else to do so, just let it grow, or pave over their lawns? At what point is the line crossed in that direction?

We are already trying to stop selling soda to kids.

<link>

Refusing medical care, and that includes legal prescription drugs based on personal feelings is ethically wrong. If you refused to rent to a Buddhist couple, or a mixed-race couple, or a Canadian, you would be just as wrong. It's as bad as the hospital shuffling that was happening in Dallas a few years ago. People were dying in ambulances because emergency rooms were refusing to treat poor people (on the basis that their insurance was inadequate).

In Chicago, pharmacists are required to fill all legal prescriptions. They are not permitted to refuse anyone any drug that a patient needs. Simply not stocking a drug is not permitted. All pharmacies are legally required to post a sign in a prominent place that outlines the law. They will be fined for non-compliance, and if they persist, they can lose their licenses to practice.

Discrimination in any field is simply unacceptable.

Let me clarify what'd I'd said about being "pushy". That's what I get posting just before I go to sleep.

IF the doctor had referred her elsewhere before giving her any treatment, it would have been different from doing everything up to the actual procedure, and then sending her home with a "do it yourself home artificial insemination kit." Of course, now he wouldn't be able to do so, since they have prohibited discrimination based on marital status.

It just seems that people should have some choices in business. Can an upscale restaurant tell some guy who is dressed in rags and smells like urine or worse that he can't eat in their establishment, even if he has enough cash (or sufficicent good credit) to pay for it? I know, as a patron, I wouldn't want him at the next table. What about a contractor choosing not to do business with a man who was accused but acquitted of raping the contractor's sister? Would you be able to work for or with someone like that, if you believed he really was guilty? Or someone who had abused you as a child? Yes, there are a lot different from refusing someone for gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., but they still are refusal of service.

What about American Idol? It "discriminates" against anyone over (I believe) 24. One day too old, and you aren't permitted to compete.

I'm not arguing for the merits of the clinic in this particular case. I'm just saying that there should be some areas in which a business owner or professional should have the ability to use some discretion in who they work for.

Ah, but your specifics are far too specific. Restaurants have dress codes, it's not illegal to refuse to work for or hire someone who's been accused of a crime, etc.

We're talking about systemized discrimination against easily recognizable groups. That has to include gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, religion, and so on. The contractor doesn't have to work for someone that he has a personal issue with, but he cannot refuse to work for a gay couple just because they're gay.

I'm smacking up against age discrimination of late, and I've been refused jobs and services because I'm female many times. I was refused a medically necessary hysterectomy by one doctor because he thought it was "sick" for any woman not to have at least one child. He was willing to leave an orange-sized ovarian tumor in place because of it. Sometimes it's worth raising a stink, sometimes it's not.

IncogNeato:

It's just kind of weird how our society has to regulate ethical standards.

Too many people do not adopt a live and let live approach.

IncogNeato:

I agree a pharmacist shouldn't be allowed to refuse a prescription to one patient that he will write for another. But should he be permitted simply not to stock that drug at all?

Yes. I think if a pharmacy doesn't wish to stock a drug at all, that is fine. But they can't just stock BC pills and not plan B, which are essentially the same drug.

IncogNeato:

Can a plastic surgeon refuse cosmetic surgery on people having vanity work done, and only work on people with actual problems, like major scars or cleft palates?

Doctors specialize, so I don't think this really applies. This is the problem with all the people who moan about whether a doctor or a nurse has to participate in an abortion if she or he doesn't feel it's moral. A medical person who does not work in an abortion clinic is unlikely to have to perform an abortion. (I suspect the ER has to do some emergency abortions for ectopic pregnancies, but I'm not going to look at that up.)

MessyONE:

In Chicago, pharmacists are required to fill all legal prescriptions. They are not permitted to refuse anyone any drug that a patient needs. Simply not stocking a drug is not permitted.

So what about expensive drugs with a short shelf life that are only needed by a few people? I think that economics is a factor in this case.

I think there is a big difference between discriminating against a person you have dealt with in the past because you simply don't like them, and discriminating against a person because of who they are. Saying, "I don't want to work with this person because I think he raped my daughter." is different than saying, "I don't want to work with this person because he's gay."

has to do with this. If she was single she could have been artificially inseminated. If she was married she could have been artificially inseminated. Why does the doctor even need to know the why part?

Interesting argument that it's free speech to deny medical care. I think it's a stretch though. Nobody is saying the doctors can't believe in a certain position.

dumb_blonde:

I think a person hired to do a job should be expected to do what they were hired for. if doing part of that job conflicts with personal beliefs, then find another job.

I just want to respond to db's stance on this. So money can buy morals? Just because you are offered the money it means you are forced to do it?

I want to clarify that I am responding to db and not saying that lesbians are immoral. :)