DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Pediatrician refuses to treat baby with lesbian parents and there’s nothing illegal about it

Pediatrician refuses to treat baby with lesbian parents and there’s nothing illegal about it

A Michigan pediatrician declined to treat the infant daughter of a lesbian couple in yet another example of the growing tensions between advocates for LGBT rights and those who want greater religious expression protections.

Krista and Jami Contreras were eager to bring their 6-day-old infant for her first doctor visit after her birth in October. The doctor that they had carefully chosen knew they were lesbians and after the first prenatal visit, they were under the impression that everything was fine. But the morning they arrived for the appointment after baby Bay’s birth, another doctor in the practice greeted them instead.

“The first thing Dr. Karam said was, ‘I’ll be your doctor, I’ll be seeing you today because Dr. Roi decided this morning that she prayed on it and she won’t be able to care for Bay,’ ” Jami told WJBK. “Dr. Karam told us she didn’t even come to the office that morning because she didn’t want to see us.”

[‘Relationship with Jesus’ doesn’t justify florist’s refusal to serve gay couple, judge rules]

In a handwritten letter to the couple months later, their would-be doctor Vesna Roi explained what happened.

“After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that i would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationships that I normally do with my patients,” Roi wrote in her letter on Feb. 9. “I felt that it was an exciting time for the two of you and I felt that if I came in and shared my decision it would take away much of the excitement. That was my mistake. I should not have made that assumption and I apologize for that.”

The incident has raised valid questions about whether Roi’s actions were justified, ethical or even legal.

“As far as we know, Bay doesn’t have a sexual orientation yet so I’m not really sure what that matters,” Jami added to WJBK. “We’re not your patient — she’s your patient. And the fact is that your job is to keep babies healthy and you can’t keep a baby healthy that has gay parents?”

The answer is: It depends.

Ethically speaking, the American Medical Association takes a strong stance against denying care to people because of their sexual orientation — and it is reasonable to assume, the sexual orientation of their parents.

But their ethical guidance is just that: Guidance. Doctors aren’t bound by it.

“Respecting the diversity of patients is a fundamental value of the medical profession and reflected in long-standing AMA ethical policy opposing any refusal to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination,” said Gregory Blaschke, chair of the AMA’s LGBT Advisory Committee, in a statement to the Detroit Free Press.

But what about the legality of it all? Well, that depends, too.

There’s no federal law prohibiting doctors or any other service providers or merchants from refusing service to gay people. And in Michigan, there’s no state law prohibiting it either.

“There’s no law that prohibits it,” Wayne State University constitutional law Prof. Robert Sedler explained to the Free Press. “It’s the same as a florist refusing to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding.”

And while individual states have taken steps to ban the practice, Michigan is considering going in exactly the opposite direction.

[Some conservatives urging right not to serve gays on religious grounds]

A House bill that would allow adoption agencies to refuse placements based on moral or religious grounds is under consideration in the legislature. And last year, the Michigan House passed a controversial “religious freedom” bill, but it stalled in the Senate. The bill was introduced in the state Senate in this year’s legislative session in January.

Backers of Michigan’s “religious freedom” legislation, Michigan House Speaker James “Jase” Bolger, explained it to the The Post’s Sandhya Somashekhar this way:

He said he was compelled by the stories of business owners who have been punished for declining to participate in same-sex weddings, such as the couple in Upstate New York who provided their barn to gay couples for receptions but balked when asked to host a same-sex wedding ceremony. The couple was fined.

“I have been stunned at the number of Americans arguing that the only place people can practice their religion is while they’re hiding in their homes and hiding in their churches, and once they leave their home and their church they are not allowed to practice their religion,” Bolger said.

The wave of same-sex marriage legalization across the country has only emboldened conservatives to turn to legislative alternatives that would codify “religious freedoms” or their right to refuse service to gay people based on moral or religious beliefs.

Roi didn’t specify that Bay’s lesbian parents were the reason felt she couldn’t serve as her doctor. But the subtext was clear. And with no law prohibiting the practice, the couple has little choice but to accept it.

“When we started calling other pediatricians, my first thing on the phone was, we’re lesbian moms — is this okay with you?” Krista told the Free Press.

__________________________________________________

Maybe this Dr. thought she took the Hypocritic Oath.

smh. sad story.

That's sad the baby didn't choose to be a lesbian ...

The Great Physician wouldn't have done this to the parents let alone the baby. He would've definitley said something about their lifestyle, but he wouldn't have done this.

well, I guess some people think they are better than God.

that's my problem with this. This doctor refused to treat a baby because of the parents lifestyle.

If God wouldn't had done that, what makes religious people think they have the right to?

We are all sinners (Romans 3:23), this dr. was wrong for not helping this baby, my policy at The Word of God Community Church is that all people are welcome at our church, but like anyone living in sin, ie... all sexual immorality, they cannot serve in ministry of any kind until they have repented and turned from their sin, if we keep them out then we are no better than they are, and we have become Judge, Jury, and Executioner ... Church is a house for sinners ... JMHO

Amen!! Than you Pastor Marc. We need your insight here. Sounds like perhaps, this family is better off without this doctor caring for their child.

That's right brother, just like there are good people who won't condemn people for their short comings, there are DR,s who feel the same way ... God loves all people and he wants all people to come to repentance ...

MATTHEW 9:12-13 Jesus Said “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

I do not think that this is right in any way. Now as I see it, he is a Pediatrician, and he has a responsibility to his patients. If he accepted the child as a patient, then he had a responsibility to care for the child.

If he had such an extreme opposition to their sexual preference, he could have quietly said, following their 1st visit, "I have to tell you that I have a religious objection to your lifestyle. We can accommodate your child here at this office, but it will have to be with a different physician. If there is an emergency, I will be more than willing to help in that case, but for ordinary office follow up I would prefer that you see a different doctor. I can understand if you wish to go to a different doctor's office entirely, and if you do, and if you like, I can recommend a very good doctor who has no such religious concerns."

However, to allow them to come in for their follow up, and then just ditch them, claiming religious objections at that point, was cowardly IMHO.

I heard this story yesterday and the doctor is a she. She said she prayed on it, it's really sad this was the answer to her prayer.

This is a tough call. When I read the title I was kinda ticked off at the Doc.. Then when I thought about it, it sounds more like she has a religious objection and didn't want to soil the couples day by being present.

I suspect that if no other doctor was available, she'd have done the job.

It's sad to me that people can't just accept people the way are and for whatever they are. Not that labels are right.

But I do get it, she has an objection to the gay/lesbian lifestyle. While I have issues with that, she was free to think that way.

If I'm that couple, I don't fight it, I just say OK, you are out, we'll find a new doctor.

I hate giving people like this doctor any press coverage. But it is what it is.

Maybe the Doctor was uncomfortable with the situation, and felt that her personal objections to their lifestyle may interfere with her properly caring for their child?

I doubt she prayed whether or not to treat the child, but probably whether or not stepping down was the correct course of action.

I wonder how this will impact her practice moving forward. So far, she's taking a beating.

So then God is to blame , after all he answered her prayers . I always find it funny that when good things happen as a result of prayer people are quick to praise the power and righteousness of God but in stories where the outcome isn't so roses then the decision is laid at the feet of the prayer sender . They must have gotten God's message mixed up . God is kind and good and compassionate ....... History doesn't bear that out but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story .

People misinterpret their religion all the time.

On one hand, I think it's sad that she can't see past the lifestyle of the parents to treat the baby.

On the other hand, if she believes her prejudices would prevent her from providing the best care possible to the child, then she did the right thing by turning the baby over to a doctor that will give it the attention and care it deserves.

............. then that says a lot more about her than it does about God.

Somebody needs to tell her to stop praying to this guy

She was pretty clear that she develops a strong relationship and bond with the families she provides for. She doesn't want that relationship to take place with a lesbian couple. She had the courage to be open about how she feels and to be honest with the parents. I am sure she knew she would get hammered by all the politically correct masses out there.

I don't think she should have dodged the visit after making the commitment but she has every right as a service provider to choose who she wishes to serve. She is a doctor, not a slave. The amount of persecution Christians already receive just for following their beliefs in this country is ridiculous for a nation that boasts religious freedom. Religious freedom is just another of our freedoms slowly but surely getting stripped away.

I bet she wouldn't give a damn if she was in a car wreck and her only chance of survival was that lesbian couple pulling her out.

her JOB, that SHE chose, is to help kids. whatever the parents sexual preference was isn't irrelevant. The kid has nothing to do with that.

All business owners and all service providers have the right to refuse service to any and all people they choose to especially when there is a conflict of interests.

It's not very good for business to do so but it is still their right to do so. They don't even have to give a reason. They can just declare a refusal to serve.

I am not even saying I agree with her decision. I am just saying she has the right to choose who she serves.

So society can refuse to serve Christians, Jews, Scientologists? Gun owners? People who own albums by The Carpenters?

Where do we draw the allowable religious intolerance line?

If you want to participate in business then aren't you obliged to obey non-discrimination laws?

What I've noticed lately is the persecution from the politically correct forces who hate anybody saying anything about religion.

I am such a victim!!!

She's getting hammered!?!?

Wow!

You'd think someone had pulled her out of a bar drove her out into the country and beat her to death.

The whole reverse victim/I'm the victim farce is sickening.

I've already expressed my disagreement with this doctor, but you don't get to turn the phrase 'politically correct' on it's ear when you know the term was created to silence religious speech to begin with.

I would say discrimination based on behavior is fine. In fact almost every store out there has at some point refused service at some point or another based on things customers are doing or might do.

I don't agree with it based on race or skin color because those are physical characteristics. Sexual activity is an act from a behavior. People want to identify themselves by sexual behavior that's fine but suffer the consequences to admitting your a pervert and that people may not want to be around you because they find your actions to be disgusting or lewd.

Who is gonna tell him that religion is a behavioral thing?

If that's what you got out of what I said, I did a poor job of expressing myself.

She said she prayed about it and wouldn't be able to care for a 6 day old child because of the parents sexual preferences. The obvious extrapolation is this decision was the answer from her prayer. I am not blaming God. I do not believe a supreme being tapped her on the shoulder and told her it was fine to be a bigot. She's a bigot of her own choosing and is choosing to wrap her warped views behind the veil of religion. It's sad.

Well, society already allows you to refuse service to gun owners....

BUt hypothetically let's play this out... let's say that YES, you can refuse service to a group of people even if for nothing more than the color of their skin or their religion.

The question that always gets asked, but is never answered: if someone thinks of you as sub-human, why would you want to give them your money and patronize their business? This isn't like the past where there is ONLY one place you can get a particular service. In fact, if you put up a sign that says "no blacks/Christians/gays/etc" served here, the MAJORITY of people would find that repugnant. Most people would stop going there and the smart competitors would say "Hey! We serve everyone! Come to us and we'll make it the best experience ever". And in most cases that business who refuses to serve a segment of the population will likely close shop.

I mean, do you really think the best way to eliminate racism and bigotry is to force people to hide it? Wouldn't it be better to let it expose itself for what it is and whither and die off on its own?

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't want to see all sorts of signs saying "(blank) ONLY"... but I often question the effectiveness of forcing people to be 'tolerant' when natural consequences have always proven to be the best educator.

So basically the answer is for the discriminated to go elsewhere?

Isn't that exactly as discrimination has always been?

Should our government support a religion or not?

I do agree that the best way to deal with prejudice is to let it out in the open for discussion, but our society claims discrimination should not be allowed in business.

We don't want or need signs saying, "Dr. for Straights" "Dr. for Gays".

PC is PC. It's used to "correct" many terms or ideas. Calling someone a fag is not politically correct. It's got nothing to do with religion but everything to do with using derogatory vocabulary and thinking.

To make the entirely false claim that Christians are held in the same contempt as homosexuals, African-Americans, mentally ill and others have been is just a form of claiming reverse victimization for not being allowed to practice a prejudice any longer.

Religion is a choice also and many religions consider other religions to be perversions.

"Disgusting and lewd" are subjective beliefs. The only way these parents exhibited disgusting and lewd behaviors was in the sick perverted mind of a so called Dr. who cant see past her own perverted thoughts to take care of an infant.

Does this Dr. present a questionnaire to patients asking them to describe their sexual activities so she can decide whether or not she will provide her services? It seems to me that would be unlawful, but for some reason this discrimination isn't.

There have always been attempts to prove discrimination is appropriate.

It's Sunday, Brown's vs. Steelers.. the winner goes to the playoffs. You can either go to an all Steelers bar or a Browns bar. Which would you choose to go to?

Most Dawgs would go to the Browns bar because they know they will have a better time and be treated better. Instinctively you already know that you aren't likely to be well received at the Steelers bar so you don't go. So what's the difference between that and going to the Steelers bar and them telling you they don't want your kind?

I think there has to be a balance between discrimination and a right to voluntary association.

Or your a Browns fan and (god forbid) your wife's a steeler fan. You go to a Browns bar, but they refuse to let your wife in.

If you want to do business using this nation's money and economy you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

But the business as a whole did not refuse her, just this doctor in the practice chose not to take them on, and gave them to another doctor in the practice.

No different than getting a co-worker to assist a customer who someone has a personal issues with, to avoid any trouble. It's better for the business in a whole in the long run.

It's completely different. In a store you receive the same merchandise as any other customer. This dr. refused to provide service to this couple only and she refused based on her own personal prejudice.

In a store when a salesperson asks another salesperson to assist there's no declaration of refusing service or discriminating based on anything other than the first salesperson's availability at the time. At any other time the first salesperson can be available to serve. If that salesperson refuses to serve based on personal prejudice they can and should be fired.

If the first salesperson gets the second to assist and it's based on prejudice, but nobody knows, it's still prejudice and discrimination. It's just that they got away with it.

No. She refused on her own personal moral objection. A Right the left has still allowed us to have, unlike free speech.

Got away with what? The law says a business cannot discriminate. If an employee decides to not deal with a customer due to their own prejudice, and finds a capable replacement to serve the customer, no legal law has been broken. The customer is still getting served.

As a customer, I don't want an employee helping me that has a problem with me, for whatever reason.

except her job description has nothing to do with the lesbian couple. she's suppose to serve the child.

They got away with discrimination in the same way I get away with going 50mph in a 35mph speed zone. Just because no officer was aware to ticket me doesn't mean I didn't break the law.

Maybe what you're describing is a painless way to still provide services, but the replacement employee doesn't state, "I'm waiting on you instead of the the other employee because God has told her not to provide services to people who are less than equal in the eyes of God".

IMO that's a huge difference. This Dr. pretty much told these ladies they're not good enough for heaven. Even the Pope has changed on the idea that humans get to decide whether others get to heaven or not. So this Dr. plain and obviously denied services because, as she told them, God says they're sinners.

You might better ask when will doctors stop playing God?

"And on the 6th day, God created man in his own image.
On the 8th day, man began re-creating God in his."

This will forever be a problem for as long as we are here.