Court: Doctors can't refuse treatment to gays.

[SirNitram]

Link

SAN FRANCISCO -- Doctors may not discriminate against gays and lesbians in medical treatment, even if the procedures being sought conflict with physicians' religious beliefs, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday.

In its second major decision advancing gay rights this year, the state high court ruled that religious physicians must obey a state law that bars businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

"The 1st Amendment's right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the . . . antidiscrimination requirements," Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the court.

The decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Guadalupe T. Benitez, an Oceanside lesbian who lives with her partner and wanted to become pregnant with donated sperm.

Benitez filed a suit after Dr. Christine Brody, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, said she would not perform an intrauterine insemination. In her lawsuit, Benitez alleged that Brody said her religious views prevented her from providing the procedure to a lesbian.

Another physician at the clinic, Dr. Douglas Fenton, later told Benitez that the staff was uncomfortable helping her conceive a child and advised her to find another doctor outside the medical group, Benitez said.

The doctors denied the allegations. Brody said she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, heterosexual or homosexual.

The state high court said the doctors' constitutional rights to freedom of religion did not trump the state antidiscrimination law because the state has a compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical care.

But the doctors "remain free to voice their objections, religious or otherwise, to the [law's] prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination," Kennard wrote.

The court also said the doctors could testify at a trial that their religious beliefs barred them from doing the procedure for reasons other than the patient's sexual orientation.

Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, predicted that the ruling would spur voters "to recognize the radical agenda of our opposition" and support a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in California. A state Supreme Court ruling in May made gay marriage legal.

Kenneth R. Pedroza, who represented the doctors, said the ruling would probably cause many physicians to refuse to perform inseminations at all. Pedroza said Brody did not violate the law because it did not bar discrimination on the basis of marital status when Benitez sought insemination in 1999. The state law has since been amended.

Asked whether Brody would perform the procedure on a married lesbian, Pedroza said: "I don't know."

But Jennifer C. Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, said Benitez's experience was "sadly common" for lesbians seeking reproductive healthcare.

"We get calls routinely about it," she said.

Benitez, 36, who is now the mother of three, said she has been pursuing her case for 10 years.

"This isn't just a win for me personally and for other lesbian women," Benitez said. "It's a win for everyone because everyone could be the next target if doctors choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people."

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, the court's most conservative justice, said in a separate concurring opinion that doctors could protect against liability by referring patients to other doctors in their practice who did not share their religious objections.

But he conceded that sole practitioners might have little choice and hinted that he might vote in a future case to spare them from the requirement.

"I am not so certain this balance of competing interests would produce the same result in the case of a sole practitioner," Baxter wrote. The court did not specifically address that question.

A spokesman for the California Medical Assn. said it opposes "invidious discrimination" and believes it is "not protected by a claim of a religious belief." The spokesman said he did not know what practical effect the decision would have on doctors and stressed that the group has no position on what the outcome of the lawsuit should be.

A trial court ruled for Benitez, but an appeals court overturned that decision in favor of the doctors. After the case landed in the state high court, civil libertarian groups sided with Benitez, and religious groups, including Jewish and Islamic clergy, argued that doctors were entitled to disavow treatments that conflicted with their beliefs.

Monday's ruling clears the way for Benitez's case to go to trial.

Maybe, if you have religious objections to doing your job, you should find a new job.

[General Zod]

Haha, suck it down fundie douchebags. This sets a fantastic precedent.

[Edi]

Good for them. Fuckwits like that need to be slapped down hard. It's really mindboggling just how much this kind of shit is tolerated and even applauded in the US. In most other West European nations that sort of behavior would lead to national news headlines in the phase where the treatment was refused and if such discrimination was discovered, there would be reprimands from regulatory associations. In Finland shit like this can lead to a doctor losing his license to practice medicine and forced to find another profession.

[Darksider]

Can someone tell me how the fuck providing medical care to a sick human being was ever in question based on doctor's religous beliefs?

Why did this even need to go before a judge?

[Guardsman Bass]

Good, another solid ruling from the California Supreme Court. I'm hoping that it sticks past November, what with all the fuckwits trying to amend the state constitution to permit their bigotry.

[Lagmonster]

Can someone tell me how the fuck providing medical care to a sick human being was ever in question based on doctor's religous beliefs?

Why did this even need to go before a judge?

Small correction: They weren't talking about a necessary medical procedure, they were talking about an elective insemination procedure. Bigots like these often feel that they're good Christians because they would fight tooth and nail to save a lesbian's life if she were dying, but would consider it wrong to help her become a mother.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Good, another solid ruling from the California Supreme Court. I'm hoping that it sticks past November, what with all the fuckwits trying to amend the state constitution to permit their bigotry.

In doing so they invalidate their own marriages, as the equal protection clause of the state still applies.

Explanation: The state supreme court ruled that the ban on gay marriage constituted a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed legal equal protection under california law, and ordered that gay marriage become legal. Were this amendment to pass (which it wont) that ruling would still stand, only the order to legalize gay marriage would not. The only solution is to annul all heterosexual marriages in the state.

Also: How the fuck is not wanting to be discriminated against in reproductive health a "radical agenda"?

How the hell is wanting to have kids "radical"?

WHat is radical is the hubris these doctors have in thinking that their religious beliefs trump not only their ethical obligation as doctors, but also state law.

[SirNitram]

Almost, Alyrium.

The amendment offered merely strips out the order to allow gays full marriage.

Since it does not strip the re-assertion that homosexuals be granted the full rights of heterosexuals, all marriages become invalidated and illegal if passed.

[Glocksman]

At the risk of being accused of the 'middle ground' fallacy, I'll state that the docs who don't want to perform elective procedures that would violate their beliefs shouldn't be forced to do so, but that they should be required to hand the patients off to docs that would perform said treatments.

As far as some fuck who'd refuse to give lifesaving treatment to a homosexual, strip him of his license and file criminal charges for depraved indifference, manslaughter or whatever charge is appropriate.

[General Zod]

At the risk of being accused of the 'middle ground' fallacy, I'll state that the docs who don't want to perform elective procedures that would violate their beliefs shouldn't be forced to do so, but that they should be required to hand the patients off to docs that would perform said treatments.

As far as some fuck who'd refuse to give lifesaving treatment to a homosexual, strip him of his license and file criminal charges for depraved indifference, manslaughter or whatever charge is appropriate.

Why does it matter if it's elective or not? If it's apart of their job description they should either do their fucking job or find a new line of work. It's not as if they can claim they were ignorant of the responsibilities involved when they took the position.

[Glocksman]

At the risk of being accused of the 'middle ground' fallacy, I'll state that the docs who don't want to perform elective procedures that would violate their beliefs shouldn't be forced to do so, but that they should be required to hand the patients off to docs that would perform said treatments.

As far as some fuck who'd refuse to give lifesaving treatment to a homosexual, strip him of his license and file criminal charges for depraved indifference, manslaughter or whatever charge is appropriate.

Why does it matter if it's elective or not? If it's apart of their job description they should either do their fucking job or find a new line of work. It's not as if they can claim they were ignorant of the responsibilities involved when they took the position.

True, and that's why I was reluctant to post on this as I'm of two minds on it.
On one hand, the docs shouldn't be forced to act against their beliefs, so long as such beliefs don't conflict with the Hippocratic Oath.
OTOH, it can be argued that refusal to artificially inseminate a patient can be held to 'do harm'.

Frankly I'm conflicted on the issue because while I don't feel that docs who flat out refuse to perform elective procedures should be punished, they do have an obligation to steer the patient to a doc that can help them.

If it sounds mushy, it's because I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other and I suspect that's true of most Americans.

[Darksider]

True, and that's why I was reluctant to post on this as I'm of two minds on it.
On one hand, the docs shouldn't be forced to act against their beliefs, so long as such beliefs don't conflict with the Hippocratic Oath.
OTOH, it can be argued that refusal to artificially inseminate a patient can be held to 'do harm'.

Frankly I'm conflicted on the issue because while I don't feel that docs who flat out refuse to perform elective procedures should be punished, they do have an obligation to steer the patient to a doc that can help them.

If it sounds mushy, it's because I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other and I suspect that's true of most Americans.

I'll chime in on this and say that if this middle ground is going to work, doctors who object to performing non-required procedures due to their religious beliefs should also be required to waive any fees or charges as well as referring the patient to someone who would perform the procedure. Anyone who leads someone on to take their money and then screw them out of the procedure should face civil liability and criminal penalties.

[Death from the Sea]

I agree with Glocksman, doctors that perform elective procedures are not even close to the same category as doctors that provide lifesaving or needed treatment for patients. Kinda the "we reserve the right to refuse service" rule.

My thinking is why would you even want a doctor that doesn't want to perform the care/service you want for you doing it anyway? it seems like they might muck it up.

I also agree that they should definitely show them where they can get their elective procedures done if they don't want to themselves.

[Glocksman]

True, and that's why I was reluctant to post on this as I'm of two minds on it.
On one hand, the docs shouldn't be forced to act against their beliefs, so long as such beliefs don't conflict with the Hippocratic Oath.
OTOH, it can be argued that refusal to artificially inseminate a patient can be held to 'do harm'.

Frankly I'm conflicted on the issue because while I don't feel that docs who flat out refuse to perform elective procedures should be punished, they do have an obligation to steer the patient to a doc that can help them.

If it sounds mushy, it's because I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other and I suspect that's true of most Americans.

I'll chime in on this and say that if this middle ground is going to work, doctors who object to performing non-required procedures due to their religious beliefs should also be required to waive any fees or charges as well as referring the patient to someone who would perform the procedure. Anyone who leads someone on to take their money and then screw them out of the procedure should face civil liability and criminal penalties.

Agreed.

[CmdrWilkens]

At the risk of being accused of the 'middle ground' fallacy, I'll state that the docs who don't want to perform elective procedures that would violate their beliefs shouldn't be forced to do so, but that they should be required to hand the patients off to docs that would perform said treatments.

As far as some fuck who'd refuse to give lifesaving treatment to a homosexual, strip him of his license and file criminal charges for depraved indifference, manslaughter or whatever charge is appropriate.

Why does it matter if it's elective or not? If it's apart of their job description they should either do their fucking job or find a new line of work. It's not as if they can claim they were ignorant of the responsibilities involved when they took the position.

So does this mean that cosmetic surgeons must be required to perform breast augmentation surgeries? That's an elective surgery which may not be the reason someone entered the profession but by your assertion if a doctor in a given field has any religious or other objections to an elective procedure they should get out of that field. Simply put the nature of elective surgery is that it is a choice of the recipient and the doctor has no obligation to perform. Now that being said and conversely if the reason for the decision not to perform comes upagainst a legally protected category then the doctor should perform it if they do the same for non-protected paitents.

So anyway long story short if a doctor objects to a procedure as a whole (for whatever personal grounds) then I would be fine with that just so long as a) There is no discrimination in terms of access to lifesaving care and
b) There is no discrimination amongst doctors who do perform the elective procedure in question.

[Setzer]

I say, if you have a job to do, you do it regardless of what the customer likes to fuck.

Anyway, good for ruling the way they did. Bit by bit, we do move forward.

[SirNitram]

The problem with allowing elective stuff to be waved off is, much like the pharmacy nonsense, or Lieberman's 'Short ride' nonsense, what if it's a considerable distance to an alternative?

[Glocksman]

The problem with allowing elective stuff to be waved off is, much like the pharmacy nonsense, or Lieberman's 'Short ride' nonsense, what if it's a considerable distance to an alternative?

That's exactly why while I have an opinion on the subject, it's not set in stone and I'm certainly willing to consider other opinions and then modify my existing opinion accordingly.

IOW, I'm honestly conflicted on the subject and not merely playing 'concern troll'.

[SirNitram]

The problem with allowing elective stuff to be waved off is, much like the pharmacy nonsense, or Lieberman's 'Short ride' nonsense, what if it's a considerable distance to an alternative?

That's exactly why while I have an opinion on the subject, it's not set in stone and I'm certainly willing to consider other opinions and then modify my existing opinion accordingly.

IOW, I'm honestly conflicted on the subject and not merely playing 'concern troll'.

I know you're not, but I think given the often rural and dispersed nature of healthcare facilities, this is not acceptable.

If I may point out another facet which bothers which, which just occoured to me(Because my insurance is damn good, and not all people's are):

What if the other locations aren't covered by your provider?

[General Zod]

So does this mean that cosmetic surgeons must be required to perform breast augmentation surgeries? That's an elective surgery which may not be the reason someone entered the profession but by your assertion if a doctor in a given field has any religious or other objections to an elective procedure they should get out of that field. Simply put the nature of elective surgery is that it is a choice of the recipient and the doctor has no obligation to perform. Now that being said and conversely if the reason for the decision not to perform comes upagainst a legally protected category then the doctor should perform it if they do the same for non-protected paitents.

Correct. If a professional of any field has objections to performing his regular job duties for reasons other than professional, then it is not a field he belongs in. Why is this so difficult to grasp? I'm obviously not talking about things like pre-existing conditions or some other issue that might cause a Doctor to refuse a patient, I'm talking about bullshit excuses like religion or racist douchebaggery. So I'm not seeing why you need this asinine strawman.

So anyway long story short if a doctor objects to a procedure as a whole (for whatever personal grounds) then I would be fine with that just so long as a) There is no discrimination in terms of access to lifesaving care and
b) There is no discrimination amongst doctors who do perform the elective procedure in question.

So you'd have no problem if a Doctor refused a patient because the Doctor was a racist prick and the patient was black?

[K. A. Pital]

So how about the oath of Hippocrates, eh? I wonder why it was tolerated even, doctors should be ready to give help even to wounded killers shall they be brought to hospital, and refusing help for some religious bullshit is serious grounds for losing a job.

[mr friendly guy]

Didn't we have this type of debate before in another thread?

Myself, General Zod, Darth Wong etc argued that doctors should treat and it they don't want to, they can get another job.

Glocksman argued the opposite quoting the AMA, while zero (before he was banned months later) also argued that same thing.

The doctors denied the allegations. Brody said she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, heterosexual or homosexual.

This seems like a smokescreen since gay marriage is not legalised in every state, effectively denying gays such services.

Nitram summed it up pretty accurately. Don't want to do your job because of religious objections, get another one.

[Covenant]

I can understand the desire to not perform a procedure that you disagree with, like how we had that story posted here about the person who wanted their totally functional arms removed but no doctor would perform the amputations. I think that's reasonable--if they have a professional or reasonable medical criteria for refusing the elective procedure then I think it's a doctor's right to at least take a pass on it.

I just wouldn't go so far as to include bigotry in the list of professional or reasonable medical criteria used for denying a patient service. The only question is how obligated a doctor is to provide an elective surgery or procedures. I suppose you could define this as a 'regular medical procedure' in a way, like getting things from a pharmacy, things which you as the medical facilitator are merely supposed to provide a technical service, like a plumber, and not have the option to deny service to someone.

But I still don't know the rules. They don't HAVE to serve you, I just know there's legal recourse for unfair treatment, even from a private business.

[General Zod]

But I still don't know the rules. They don't HAVE to serve you, I just know there's legal recourse for unfair treatment, even from a private business.

Reserving the right to refuse anyone does not mean they're allowed to refuse service based on things like religion, race, nationality, etc. As the article in the OP is a good demonstration of it's a pretty clear violation of the civil rights act.

[Invictus ChiKen]

General Zod, Darth Wong etc argued that doctors should treat and it they don't want to, they can get another job.

Ditto for me. I've flip flopped on this issue but it all comes down to the fact you signed on for a job that serves the public. You don't like what you got to do? Go somewhere else or deal.

Also I have to echo General Zod. What is so different from say a Fundamentalist refusing to provide a procedure to a LGBT and a racist refusing to provide a procedure to a member of a racial minority?