Hey asshole doctor - how about your Hippocratic Oath?
Feb 20, 2015 10:46:36 #
New moms Jami and Krista Contreras brought their 6-day-old baby for a check-up with the pediatrician they'd interviewed months before she was born. But, when they arrived, they had an unpleasant surprise:
But as Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn's first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a change of heart. After "much prayer," she decided that she couldn't treat their baby because they are lesbians.
The couple say they were simultaneously in shock and humiliated, compounded by the fact the baby needed to be fed and they were stuck in the office when all they really wanted to do was run.
Dr. Vesna Roi has offered the couple an apology:
"Dear Jami & Krista, I am writing this letter of apology as I feel that it is important and necessary. I never meant to hurt either of you. After much prayer following your prenatal (visit), I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients."
No word on why having two moms would prevent her from developing a meaningful relationship with a beautiful baby girl.
Although there is nothing illegal about what Dr. Roi did, one attorney is hoping that will change:
Attorney Dana Nessel, who is handling the Michigan same-sex marriage case that's about to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, believes the laws need to change. If not, she said, more families like the Contrerases will be mistreated by the medical profession.
The Contreras say they waited for months before deciding to come forward, ultimately deciding it is a conversation that has to be had for things to change.
But as Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn's first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a change of heart. After "much prayer," she decided that she couldn't treat their baby because they are lesbians.
The couple say they were simultaneously in shock and humiliated, compounded by the fact the baby needed to be fed and they were stuck in the office when all they really wanted to do was run.
Dr. Vesna Roi has offered the couple an apology:
"Dear Jami & Krista, I am writing this letter of apology as I feel that it is important and necessary. I never meant to hurt either of you. After much prayer following your prenatal (visit), I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients."
No word on why having two moms would prevent her from developing a meaningful relationship with a beautiful baby girl.
Although there is nothing illegal about what Dr. Roi did, one attorney is hoping that will change:
Attorney Dana Nessel, who is handling the Michigan same-sex marriage case that's about to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, believes the laws need to change. If not, she said, more families like the Contrerases will be mistreated by the medical profession.
The Contreras say they waited for months before deciding to come forward, ultimately deciding it is a conversation that has to be had for things to change.
Feb 20, 2015 10:55:08 #
Regardless of his feelings about gay women, the "baby" is not gay. He had a moral as well as legal obligation to properly treaat the pregnant woman. He should loose his licence to practice medicine. I have been in the OR for over 4,000 cases in my career, never once, was a question asked about sexual preference.
Feb 20, 2015 11:00:56 #
boberic wrote:
Regardless of his feelings about gay women, the "baby" is not gay. He had a moral as well as legal obligation to properly treaat the pregnant woman. He should loose his licence to practice medicine. I have been in the OR for over 4,000 cases in my career, never once, was a question asked about sexual preference.
Whatever, as much as I disagree with the doctor's decision I do agree with his right to make it.... there are other doctors in town and he does have his right to religious belief and to control the labor of his own hands....
I really think that the doctor's decision is deplorable on a number of levels, but that does not trump his individual rights to make a shitty decision.
Feb 20, 2015 11:05:38 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Whatever, as much as I disagree with the doctor's decision I do agree with his right to make it.... there are other doctors in town and he does have his right to religious belief and to control the labor of his own hands....
I really think that the doctor's decision is deplorable on a number of levels, but that does not trump his individual rights to make a shitty decision.
I really think that the doctor's decision is deplorable on a number of levels, but that does not trump his individual rights to make a shitty decision.
No. He does not. He is under Medical ethics to treat all repeat ALL those who come before him for treatment. Regardles of the status of the patient. He is not obligated to like it, but he must treat the patient with all the skill at his disposal
Feb 20, 2015 11:19:23 #
boberic wrote:
No. He does not. He is under Medical ethics to treat all repeat ALL those who come before him for treatment. Regardles of the status of the patient. He is not obligated to like it, but he must treat the patient with all the skill at his disposal
That is not true unless the patient is in need of immediate treatment to prevent loss of life.
Feb 20, 2015 11:21:12 #
How is this any different from a bakery having to close because of legal costs defending themselves from a lawsuit and the state of Oregon because they wouldn't bake a wedding cake for two lesbians BEFORE same sex marriage was even legal in that state?
Or the 70 year old florist in Richland, WA who will ultimately lose her business AND home because she declined to supply flowers for a gay wedding, Not because of their orientation but the actual ceremony. They were existing customers and she immediately found another florist to do the job But NOOO... That's discrimination against a "protected" class.
Or the 70 year old florist in Richland, WA who will ultimately lose her business AND home because she declined to supply flowers for a gay wedding, Not because of their orientation but the actual ceremony. They were existing customers and she immediately found another florist to do the job But NOOO... That's discrimination against a "protected" class.
Feb 20, 2015 11:37:11 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
This is different than baking a cake or photographing and any number of other "services" that involve a celebration of something you have issue with. It was classless way to do it. And his or her primary concern should be to the well being of the child, who is innocent of anything.
If they were harming the child, either mentally or physically, then how would anybody be able to step in to take measures... this goes for any number of possible parent/child pairings, and is vastly most often in "traditional" situations... If the couple was indoctrinating the child in some way, and were militant about it..and it was this aspect the doctor had issue with, ie: a t-shirt that said "all men are scum", But merely showing up and doing the right thing for the child...
Proof that a degree, no matter how difficult or arduous to achieve, does not make a good doctor, which includes knowledge and talent at applying this knowledge, bedside manner, and class.
For me, this would tell me everything I need to know about this doctor.
Do I think he/she should be punished legally? Nope. Idiocy should not be illegal, or we'd have no democrats or Paynes.
If they were harming the child, either mentally or physically, then how would anybody be able to step in to take measures... this goes for any number of possible parent/child pairings, and is vastly most often in "traditional" situations... If the couple was indoctrinating the child in some way, and were militant about it..and it was this aspect the doctor had issue with, ie: a t-shirt that said "all men are scum", But merely showing up and doing the right thing for the child...
Proof that a degree, no matter how difficult or arduous to achieve, does not make a good doctor, which includes knowledge and talent at applying this knowledge, bedside manner, and class.
For me, this would tell me everything I need to know about this doctor.
Do I think he/she should be punished legally? Nope. Idiocy should not be illegal, or we'd have no democrats or Paynes.
Feb 20, 2015 11:41:36 #
This is where it is better to lie than to be honest and tell the true feeling behind not wanting to serve the "protected" class. If I were the florist, the baker or the doctor, I'd have simply said I'm too busy to take on a new client. Can I refer you to another florist, doctor, baker?
Sometimes telling the truth can be more harmful than good. What about the families of the people that told the truth and refused to serve the gay community? I'm assuming that they had a life with spouses, children, financial responsibilities etc., and they are all harmed by telling the truth. Simply refuse to serve and keep your true reasons to yourself.
Sometimes telling the truth can be more harmful than good. What about the families of the people that told the truth and refused to serve the gay community? I'm assuming that they had a life with spouses, children, financial responsibilities etc., and they are all harmed by telling the truth. Simply refuse to serve and keep your true reasons to yourself.
Feb 20, 2015 11:46:00 #
RichieC wrote:
This is different than baking a cake or photograph... (show quote)
The dr did the right thing for the kid by recusing himself thinking he may not give the kid proper treatment based on his personal convictions.
Feb 20, 2015 12:34:05 #
Blurryeyed wrote, in part: I really think that the doctor's decision is deplorable on a number of levels, but that does not trump his individual rights to make a shitty decision.[/quote]
Nobody was put in danger, as also stated, and I agree.
Nobody was put in danger, as also stated, and I agree.
Feb 20, 2015 12:42:09 #
NeilL
Loc: British-born Canadian
boberic wrote:
No. He does not. He is under Medical ethics to treat all repeat ALL those who come before him for treatment. Regardles of the status of the patient. He is not obligated to like it, but he must treat the patient with all the skill at his disposal
This was a female doctor in Michigan. I think she got "Gynecologist" and "Misogynist" mixed up.
Feb 20, 2015 12:44:49 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Whatever, as much as I disagree with the doctor's decision I do agree with his right to make it.... there are other doctors in town and he does have his right to religious belief and to control the labor of his own hands....
I really think that the doctor's decision is deplorable on a number of levels, but that does not trump his individual rights to make a shitty decision.
I really think that the doctor's decision is deplorable on a number of levels, but that does not trump his individual rights to make a shitty decision.
BigBear wrote:
The dr did the right thing for the kid by recusing himself thinking he may not give the kid proper treatment based on his personal convictions.
DaveO wrote:
Nobody was put in danger, as also stated, and I agree.
I have to agree with all of the above.
Feb 20, 2015 14:20:10 #
I agree with the doc. She is under no obligation to treat every patient. If she believed that she would be unable to give the patient the best care available for whatever reason she was within her right to decline.
Feb 20, 2015 16:23:19 #
Physicians decline to treat patients all of the time for a variety of reasons. However, good medical ethics calls for giving the patient time to find another caregiver by continuing care for some stated period of time. This doc did not do that, just sent another physician, which is a mild breach of ethics.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.