California rules doctors cannot withhold care to gays.
By on Aug 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
California rules doctors cannot withhold care to gays.
California’s high court has ruled doctors cannot withhold care to gays or lesbians based on religious beliefs.
The case stems from a San Diego-area lesbian’s claim that a private fertility clinic refused to inseminate her because of her sexual orientation.A unanimous state Supreme Court said that California’s civil rights law barring sexual orientation discrimination extends to medical care.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
66 Responses to “California rules doctors cannot withhold care to gays.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh, good. Daryll bait!
Here, Daryll Daryll Daryll...
August 18th, 2008 at 5:43 pmThank God.
Now if Larry Craig gets hurt in California -- he'll get the care he needs.
Now I can relax.
-sarcasm off, now.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pmI think Daryll got Raptured, Ralph.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pmCalifornia’s high court has ruled doctors cannot withhold care to gays or lesbians based on religious beliefs.
- - Doctors may, however, post signs in their offices that read, "NO Shirt, NO Shoes, NO SERVICE<"
August 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pmRalph,
You beat me to it. But I wonder if Daryll is here today, he seems to have lost some of his zeal lately.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pmOn the other hand, or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say, in... the other hand... this woman should be thankful that particular clinic refused to inseminate her... 'cause, given their clearly presented political/religious beliefs, they prolly only accept, uh, "contributions", so to speak, from GOOPer/fundie types, and would that woman REALLY, REALLY want those genes for her baby-to-be?
Ya should be thankful, ma'm... ya dodged a bullet there...
Snark/off...
August 18th, 2008 at 5:50 pmSt. D is so far in over his head, that he looks up expecting to see a hovering Jeebutz, and only sees the round manhole cover.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:50 pmThat bastid! He said I could have his Tahoe when that happened!
(Welllll... he didn't actually say, but I asked him and he didn't say no.)
August 18th, 2008 at 5:53 pmYou can practice medicine, and you can practice religion. But you can't practice medicine on only those people who practice your religion.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:53 pmOr maybe Daryll is busy bringing the wrath of God down on the CA Supreme Court.
I am also betting that this will get appealed to the SCOTUS, as I am sure the Right Wing Wackos want to test the waters there.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:54 pmUpside, I am of the considered opinion that rightwingwhackos love them some SCROTUS water any time they can get it.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:55 pmFreaking bigots. I'm so sick and tired of them.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:59 pmgummitch Says:
I think Daryll got Raptured, Ralph.
Heh - better "raptured" than ruptured, eh? ;o)
August 18th, 2008 at 6:00 pmHey! Hurricane Fay making landfall in SW Florida right now. God missed Sacramento by 3,000 miles!
August 18th, 2008 at 6:00 pmNow if they can only make this federal, and cover PHARMACIES too.
ANd Wayne, that quote was golden:
"You can practice medicine, and you can practice religion. But you can’t practice medicine on only those people who practice your religion."
I have to save that one.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pmPhysicians have ways dealing with patients they do not want to care for.
Usually it is passing the buck... referring a patient to another physician for reasons that could be credible but are really bogus.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pmOh great, another giant non-issue to keep the right wing nuts from voting for what is truly in their best interests.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:08 pmThe Troll Dept. is getting so threadbare that they have to book temps from Acme now?
Did they not watch Roadrunner cartoons when they were kids?
August 18th, 2008 at 6:25 pmAcme Dumbocrat, please take one of your patented sticks of dynamite, light it and shove it up your keester. Then get your roller skates on and enjoy the ride.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pmWow, ralph, that was prescient?!
August 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pmThere will be a mass reich-wing immigration to California very soon.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:30 pmGreat minds, RUC. Great minds.
Also, troll softballs.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:31 pmGood, now we need to stop pharmacists who refuse to dispense (and that is the word) Plan B because it is 'against their beliefs.'
August 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pmACME_Democrat Says
Too much METH! Send HELP!
August 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pmHey Zed,
Would that agency also oversee obtuse and dumb-ass posts on here? Might save us from some of your weird stuff.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pmZed, as much as I appreciate your stabs at comedy, I have to express some concern for your apparent mental state.
Seriously, are you getting enough sleep?
Taking enough time to recover in between acid trips?
Only buying from reputable dealers?
You're not gonna be young forever, lad. Take care of yourself so you can look forward to many years of inane trolling.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:46 pmThis should be a no-brainer -- of course gays shouldn't be discriminated against, whether it comes to artificial insemination, other medical care, or anything else.
I would think this opens another can of worms, though. What if private fertility clinics delved into every aspect of a person's life to determine what kind of parent they would be before they agreed to perform artificial insemination? Would they demand the woman be married? Employed (or have an employed spouse)? A tee-totaler? A non-smoker? Have a college education? Live in a home large enough to accommodate a baby?
There is probably a good argument out there somewhere about the idea of fertility clinics conducting themselves like adoption agencies, but I suspect the clinic that triggered this lawsuit was only concerned about the mother's sexual orientation. Which is a bit silly, when you consider that almost everything else on my list in the last paragraph would have a greater impact on a child than that.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pmI'm relieved. I've never had to prove my sexual orientation when going to see a doctor, but it's nice to know I'm not going to have to start.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pmI wonder how Larry Craig and Linseed Graham feel about this ruling? Maybe they will start seeking medical care in California, just to be safe.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:58 pmThis makes me very very upset and sad for my country. No not that the California supreme court ruled that Doctors have to do their jobs. It makes me upset and sad for my country that we actually needed a state supreme court to force them to do so.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:59 pmCalifornia’s high court has ruled doctors cannot withhold care to gays or lesbians based on religious beliefs.
It is absolutely sickening that such a ruling needs to be made. If you are not willing to treat people for what ails them, you have no business in the medical profession.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
August 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pmFavoring Hippocrates over Jebus? The Psycochristians are going to explode!
August 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pmWhy would anyone who takes the Hippocratic oath deny medical services to homosexuals?
August 18th, 2008 at 7:16 pmDid the court address whether gay doctors can withhold care from straights?
August 18th, 2008 at 7:26 pmDamn, there goes the Republicans last hope!! They have vigorously promoting homosexuality for the Democrats figuring that in a couple of generations they would all disappear. But those damn librul judges lettin' all those queens and dikes adopt those kids and have tots in a tube is sure messing up their best laid (pun intended) plans.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:44 pmPlease, Jesus, save us from your followers.
Why are some of the most vile people religious?
August 18th, 2008 at 7:52 pmI may be an agnostic but I've got to stick up for Jesus on this one.
Those jackass doctors shouldn't hide behind Jesus to conceal their petty hang-ups.
There weren't a lot of inspiring gospels about times that Jesus heroically refused to treat someone.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:52 pmHippocratic Oath—Modern Version
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.
Nothing here suggesting special refusal to homosexuals.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pmIs there now a "gay" or "not gay" box to check on intakes sheets at the doctor's office?
I mean, how does this come up?
And why does a court have to force DOCTORS to treat PATIENTS?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:18 pmIf the courts can say that muslim taxi drivers have to pick up disabled people with dogs, then they can say doctors must treat gays and lesbians even if they are homophobic. end of story. Frankly I find it funny that zealots worry that muslims will take over the US, while they try to put in place some sort of christian theocracy.
I think my brain hurts
August 18th, 2008 at 8:38 pmIt truly is amazing what people can rationalize in the name of religion. Such cold-heartedness is staggering and downright sad.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:08 pmpiltdown,
Thank you.
I would also note that you can practice your religion on only those who practice medicine, if that is your choice, but you cannot practice medicine on only those who practice your religion.
And thanks for the compliment.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:13 pmZooey Says:
Is there now a “gay” or “not gay” box to check on intakes sheets at the doctor’s office?
I mean, how does this come up?
And why does a court have to force DOCTORS to treat PATIENTS?
Come on, Zooey...do the words "prostate exam" and "ball gag" not give this one away, at least for guys? :) I know, years of watching "Family Guy" and the like series' have warped my mind beyond hope!
But SD does have a lot of issues with gay and lesbian rights outside of certain areas. Lord help them if they move to an area with upper middle class families with snob children! It's like one of those 1960's "So they've moved into your neighborhood" sort of things. Medical care can be touchy if they get a crap doctor or whacko nurse.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pmCalifornia’s high court has ruled doctors can withhold care to neo-cons,loyal Bushies and members of the religious right because of their extremist religious beliefs.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:13 pmIs there a parable where Jesus doesn't cure the gay leper?
August 19th, 2008 at 12:05 amFrom the Hipocratic to the hypocritic, now we have to legislate doctors. I realize that the suit was more about homophobia, but it says something about Christofascists that they must be FORCED to be compassionate.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:30 amAnd everyone thought insurance companies needed a lesson in compassion!
Patient: Yes, doctor...I started bleeding from the ear and I don't know why. Can you help?
Doctor: I'm sorry, but it's Easter in 10 minutes and I've mailed it in until Monday. Maybe our intern can diagnose your ailment while I have a ceremonial Peep fight in the lounge. Here...stick this Q-tip in your ear and see if it helps. By the way, are you gay? Because if you are I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to leave...NOW, before I get security in here!
August 19th, 2008 at 2:02 amPerhaps this also means that a gay or lesbian physician would also be required to treat a heterosexual patient?
August 19th, 2008 at 2:31 amFine it is a victory. But, who wants to be treated by a doctor who hates them?
August 19th, 2008 at 5:42 am#50 - Domino Says:
---------------------------------------------------
"Fine it is a victory. But, who wants to be treated by a doctor who hates them?"
August 19th, 2008 at 5:42 am
It's not about being treated by a doctor who personally dislikes you. It's about requiring a doctor to follow the oath they swore to uphold. If they are incapable of upholding an oath they wore by blaming it on the religion they choose to follow, when will it stop?
Will they be allowed to not provide service to black people because their skin was "burnt by God" as a sign of his "disfavor"?
Will they be allowed to not provide service to people that divorce for reasons other than sexual infidelity, as Jesus said that is wrong?
If Doctors are incapable of following the oath they took then they should voluntarily stop practicing medicine before they're forced to do the right thing. If this doctor had been able to do the right thing to begine with, this case/verdict wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, it is necessary to force some people to do the right thing.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:47 amThis is elective stuff, artificial insemination, right? I mean, fertility docs ain't doing Emergency work...It's not like they work with scalpels; they use fuuking turkey basters...
Nobody HAS to get pregnant, it's not life-and-death.
Buying a fetus is not unlike buying a Coke, innit? Nobody's forcing you to buy that Coke, and the store can have a dress code which, if a customer does not meet it, permits service to be withheld. How many times have I seen in my life this sign: No shoes, no shirt no service? You usta see this sign everywhere: We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.
Why shouldn't it be the same for doctors who are just practicing their 'love?' There was no emergency. The woman didn't have to get her fetus from that Doc; she could have gone around the corner, to the next fetus store--they're common as gas stations in SoCal, fer chrissake--and gotten herself fetus 'prescription filled.'
I'm only being about half-snarky here...
August 19th, 2008 at 8:49 am#52 - tokin librul Says:
----------------------------------------------------------
"This is elective stuff, artificial insemination, right? I mean, fertility docs ain’t doing Emergency work…It’s not like they work with scalpels; they use fuuking turkey basters…
Nobody HAS to get pregnant, it’s not life-and-death."
August 19th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I can see your perspective, up to a point.
How would you have felt if it was an inter-racial couple and the doctor claimed it was his religious belief that inter-racial couples should not bear children?
How would you feel if it were a straight couple that wasn't married and the doctor claimed it was his religious belief that only married couples should have children?
Does the doctor in question have a notice in his office that says "I will apply my religious beliefs to determine if you should receive my services, and will deny services to anyone that I decide is unworthy of my services"?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:53 amDemocrat Soldier Says:
#50 - Domino Says:
—————————————————
“Fine it is a victory. But, who wants to be treated by a doctor who hates them?”
August 19th, 2008 at 5:42 am
It’s not about being treated by a doctor who personally dislikes you. It’s about requiring a doctor to follow the oath they swore to uphold. If they are incapable of upholding an oath they wore by blaming it on the religion they choose to follow, when will it stop?
Will they be allowed to not provide service to black people because their skin was “burnt by God” as a sign of his “disfavor”?
Will they be allowed to not provide service to people that divorce for reasons other than sexual infidelity, as Jesus said that is wrong?
If Doctors are incapable of following the oath they took then they should voluntarily stop practicing medicine before they’re forced to do the right thing. If this doctor had been able to do the right thing to begine with, this case/verdict wouldn’t be necessary. Unfortunately, it is necessary to force some people to do the right thing.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:47 am
bit thought the oath, if not completely put aside, had been “downgraded.”
Wouldn’t the oath require at the very least some major adjustment in order to allow Dr’s to do abortions?
Do you suppose that abortionist Tiller out in Kansas displays the Hippocratic oath on the walls of his clinic? ( Kansas, and Tiller, sees about ninety percent of the partial birth abortions in the USA.)
Abortion is considerable violence to women, and this is especially true if the unborn is a female.
Guess the oath must have an exception clause.
Seems to bit that while artificial insemination falls under the heading of health care it also falls under the category of elective. Those posters above who made it sound as if Dr’s were denying live saving treatments to female homosexuals were more than a little transparent.
It can’t be that big a deal to artificially inseminate a woman anyway. bit use to date a woman who had inseminated a number of cows, and a miss, in the case of inseminating a cow, doesn’t threaten the life of a patient the way a botched abortion does.
Bet abortionist Tiller could do it. Wow! A full service shop.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:58 pmSo doctors have been withholding care for gay people now? Wow. My "flee for my life" fund is nearly complete. Canada used to seem like a good idea, but now the close geographical proximity seems too scary as well, so I am looking hard at New Zealand.
It's very far, the seasons are reversed and they drive on the left side of the road, but gay people are left in peace, and that's all I want.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:30 pmI love these Pro-Life people...it's like having a group of ducks stuck in a barrel and I have a shotgun ready to pounce.
So in your guys' "perfect god fearing world" you'd have no abortion and every woman carrying to term in this nation...even in circumstances of rape and incest? How "Christian" of you! Yeah, let me tell you bible thumpers how it'll play out. If you think the that these kids could just be thrown into state custody and be adopted, look at the current state of adoptions in our nation. To say it's a mess is to put it nicely. You Christian bigots think the "unwanted" would just be scooped up into your "loving" arms. That's the biggest fallacy of your argument. You people don't even adopt those that are out there currently...so why should we think by taking away a woman's right to choose would make that any different?! What, do you only want cute 2-14 month old white babies to adopt?
Just so you know, those "tillers" could very much be in your hospitals and health care clinics with the rate of malpractice insurance costs and closing of them "other" clinics. The next "baby killer" could be touching you or one of your loved ones. Ah, the sweet irony of those you hate becoming the one you trust with your health. Doesn't get any better.
So before you think you can get on the cross, remember...someone will have to treat your wounds you get from putting yourself up there!
August 19th, 2008 at 2:59 pmI'm just wondering, did anyone else see that this was a private clinic? Doesn't that mean that they can set their own standards for who they treat and how they treat them?
A public clinic is something entirely different, but trying to tell a private clinic who they must treat and how would be like the government mandating what beliefs must be taught in church. A better example might be suing a Catholic health mission because they wouldn't give you an abortion.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pmIt's a fertility clinic...a place where guys yank out their man juices to porn, so women can eventually get pregnant. I didn't know a place like this could put out a sign that said, "No Gay & Lesbian couples need come in and apply". That's legalized discrimination. Medical clinics like this are supposed to serve the public, even in a private format. Essentially, if you can pay they have to have a very good set of medical reasons for rejecting you. Sexual orientation can not be a lone standard.
If you needed plastic surgery and the doctor saw a religious or political symbol on you, then threw you out on your ear...I bet you wouldn't be taking it in stride.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pmIf it was a private plastic surgery practice and I wanted them to do something that they don't want to do, I'm just out of luck. No matter their reason for not wanting to do the procedure.
Now if it was government sponsored or supported, that's a different issue. Here, the clinic was private and offering elective procedures. They can accept or reject anyone they want to. To allow the government to dictate to private businesses what they can or cannot do sounds much like socialism.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pmThat isn't socialism and you know it. A private clinic/business has to file tax returns, pays a bank or another institute money for the land or space they use and has to follow state hiring practices. You don't become exempt from these things simply because you have "private" attached to the practice or business at hand. Laws don't go away...the government can always find leverage over these places when stupid people do extremely stupid things. And you've proven your ignorance with trying to confuse the point with bait & switch talking points.
In what we're talking about, the doctor didn't have an excuse other that they didn't want to give out the sperm based on personal objections, not based on any medical facts and/or objections that related to this. You simply can't do that...that is called discrimination. In any private practice/business, if you do that you will be sued. If money changes hands in a private clinic, the doctor essentially has to perform what they are there for, because they are now bound by not only principle but by laws over this matter. By imposing their own beliefs and nothing else over the patient, they crossed the line. If you think that is socialism, you are in desperate need of a clue and definition of the term.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:21 pmActually, the business has to provide the service for which they are contracted. What you have stated is indeed socialism where the government tells a business what services to provide and for whom.
In this situation, unless the clinic had contractually agreed to provide this service for this woman, they are under no obligation to do so. Also, unless they contracted to perform the service and only reneged after discovering that she was gay, there is no way to prove discrimination.
You call using the word socialism 'bait and switch' and it is inflammatory, but it is accurate in your description of how the government should interact with the private clinic in this case. You try and point out hiring laws and taxes as not being socialistic, but are they not government controls placed on private businesses? Maybe it is you who should read up on your Marx and Engels.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:31 pmY'all,
One thing I've noticed here is that Daryll tends to leave between 5:30 and 6:00 EDT.
He's either blogging from work or prison or school or a library or some other public computer.
Oh, it might be his church; the place which he attends to learn hatred and intolerance and racism and homophobia.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:36 pmshadrach
It's people like you who "think" you know what socialism is, but your facts are wrong. A socialist government doesn't allow a free market to exist. The fact that there are controls to allow fair business/medical practices wouldn't exist in a socialist government, since it would be one system for every citizen. So your argument that the government can tell this clinic what it can/can't do will exist in every democracy, because the doctors practice under a state license, dispense drugs under a DEA license and that the government has a checks and balances system to make sure these people can't abuse patients...like in a free market system, which you want. Because, in a free market system, doctors who have no regulations or basic rules other than the freedom to make money, would have their practices above the patient's basic rights.
If you think hiring laws and taxes are socialist...man, I feel sorry for you. I guess you're a member of a local tax freedom group, support a flat tax and believe in some form of social Darwinism. Maybe you should stop fearing a failed political system at every turn and realize that what you want most is what everyone should really fear. Because what you want is this nation to adopt a Third World system, where the rich rule over the poor and throw the last 70 years of social and economic reforms away.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:57 pmNo, actually that's not what I want. I happen to live in a third world country helping the locals be able to help themselves. Do you have much experience in the third world?
The U.S.'s system is not a free market specifically for the reasons about which we are talking. A pure free market system allows for social Darwinism and I doubt anyone really wants that. It would never allow for small business. So the U.S. has taken a capitalist system, democratized it, and then socialized it. We still lean more toward the capitalist side, but you cannot deny the socialistic underpinnings. And this instance just happens to prove that the government wants further control to the exclusion of individual freedoms: namely, the freedom to run my non-government sponsored business the way I want.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:11 amThis is a real funny argument, because you are pointing to one extreme and coming back to the other. Because if you think private businesses and medical practices in the U.S., under G.W. Bush has "socialistic underpinnings", that's as funny as anything I've heard lately. Private enterprise in the U.S. may have laws attached, but take a look at what other countries have to do to get some of these companies to leave the country and put corporate HQ's inside their own nations.
I know you're trying to get to the point that the government here tells the doctors what to do. It's just that the doctors here are supposed to help people no matter their age, sex, nationality, religious preference or sexual orientation. Some of us are funny when a doctor puts their interests ahead of the patients when it is the doctor's selfishness and bigotry...and nothing else...that is the source of it all. So if you think that is the source of "socialistic underpinnings", than I guess we're guilty of it...because you know, some of us don't want to throw our ethics away for pure greed.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:12 am#54 - bitblt Says:
------------------------------------------------------------
"It can’t be that big a deal to artificially inseminate a woman anyway. bit use to date a woman who had inseminated a number of cows, and a miss, in the case of inseminating a cow, doesn’t threaten the life of a patient the way a botched abortion does."
August 19th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
So, Bitbit, you're on the side of the woman who was denied service due to her sexual orientation?
What does abortion have to do with artificial insemenation? Or are you just trying to create a straw-man argument for yourself?
August 20th, 2008 at 9:41 amSo you're saying you don't want to throw your ethics away, but are perfectly willing to have the government force someone to act against theirs just because you don't agree with them? That sounds a little bigoted.
Let me ask a small question: What's wrong with this woman going to a public clinic where she knows it would be illegal to turn her away? As one commenter implied, maybe it's better that she didn't get the sperm from this 'bigoted' clinic. That's obviously not the DNA she should want. Right?
Or, perhaps the lady went to this clinic specifically to make a big deal out of all of this, knowing that she would be turned away. Maybe this is all about a big media hype.
Also I think it's funny that you want to place doctors in a special realm of those who don't have the rights of other businessmen. Would you tell a stock trader that he had to trade in all markets? Or a contractor that he had to contract with every available sub-firm? Of course not. So why should doctors treat everyone despite the doctors' personal preferences, morals, and ethical beliefs?
August 21st, 2008 at 1:30 am