Discrimination or not?

[Dentafrice]

I want to see how people feel about this. I don't want any -REPs or flaming.. just a simple opinion.

There was a case in the US recently where a lesbian couple wanted in vitro fertilization, the two doctors from the office they went to.. said this was against their morals and beliefs.

They said they would refer them to someone who would do it, but they just couldn't.

The couple then turned around and sued the doctors for discrimination, and the court agreed that those doctors should have performed this, and must give the woman what she wants.

Now in my opinion this is stupid, a doctor should have any freedom whatsoever to perform these acts. Unless it is a dire emergency operation, he should have a choice, and no punishment go.

What do you think?

[Virgin Mary]

Conversely you could argue that forcing the doctors to do something they don't want to is a violation of their human rights and slavery to a degree. It would be understandable if it was doctors in the NHS...but it's not, it's America. Which explains why this happened anyway.

[BlueTango]

I dont think sueing was appropriate but I can see why.

A doctor is a doctor and they should carry out their full job description.
Thats like a fireman refusing to rescue someone that started a fire.

[Dentafrice]

I dont think sueing was appropriate but I can see why.

A doctor is a doctor and they should carry out their full job description.
Thats like a fireman refusing to rescue someone that started a fire.
Not really.. that's not near the same thing.

There are more then one doctors office, there are more then one doctor willing to perform that.. it's not like one fire department at a fire.. where it is their job to do that.

The doctors description and oath states they will do what is medically best for their patients, not what the patients want, they have a choice.

Just like unless you sign a contract, you don't have to stay at a certain job, or stay doing a certain thing.. you have the freedom to pick and choose.

[PaintYourTarget]

Yeah, this wasn't urgent or life saving treatment so I guess they could refuse treatment based on their beliefs. My NHS dentist wont use excessive sedation on patients 'cause he doesn't believe in it, so he wont perform it.

But, the fact they referred them to a different doctor shows that they were willing to help. I think the lesbians are just leeching onto a chance for free money.

[Dentafrice]

Yeah, this wasn't urgent or life saving treatment so I guess they could refuse treatment based on their beliefs. My NHS dentist wont use excessive sedation on patients 'cause he doesn't believe in it, so he wont perform it.

But, the fact they referred them to a different doctor shows that they were willing to help. I think the lesbians are just leeching onto a chance for free money.
I agree.

People believe what they believe, and that should be respected. Unless the doctors just said 'OMGZ UR LESBIAN WE NOT GONNA HELP!'.

Yeah, like you said about the dentist.. if the doctors who was performing a heart surgery said "oh we are not putting him to sleep, we don't believe in that.." then yeah, there is a problem there.

But not something like this.

[bo$$]

I don't think they had the right to sue the doctors because they didn't say "oh we don't want to because you're lesbians" they just said its against their morals. Everyone has them and if you don't then you're looked upon as a savage idiot.

[5,5]

thats a completely stupid case to sue for, if it was against there morals its against there morals. how are they gonna think that the doctors are there ******* and do what they want them to. if i were the judge in this case, i would make the lesbos pay the doctors what ever the fee is for discriminating against there morals. :)

[Dentafrice]

but sadly the stupid judge agreed with them.

[BlueTango]

A judge is a highly trained professional. They'd of had good reasoning for their decisions.

In a lot of jobs I can think of you'd be sacked if you let your morals get in the way...

Although they didnt say it in so many words; we need to think about the reasoning as to why they wouldnt do it. The lesbians natural instinct would of lead them to believe that they wouldnt do it because they are lesbians....

That may be the reason ^ Even if they didnt say it.

[Dentafrice]

A judge is a highly trained professional. They'd of had good reasoning for their decisions.

In a lot of jobs I can think of you'd be sacked if you let your morals get in the way...

Although they didnt say it in so many words; we need to think about the reasoning as to why they wouldnt do it. The lesbians natural instinct would of lead them to believe that they wouldnt do it because they are lesbians....

That may be the reason ^ Even if they didnt say it.
But in a private practice owned by those doctors, it doesn't matter.. they aren't going to be sacked.

A judge may be a highly trained professional, but the jury also affects the decision made by the judge ;) It looks bad on the judge if the entire jury says guilty.. and he says innocent.. so he follows what they say as a main reason.

[Earthquake]

Conversely you could argue that forcing the doctors to do something they don't want to is a violation of their human rights and slavery to a degree. It would be understandable if it was doctors in the NHS...but it's not, it's America. Which explains why this happened anyway.
pretty much clears up this thread.

[BlueTango]

A judge may be a highly trained professional, but the jury also affects the decision made by the judge ;) It looks bad on the judge if the entire jury says guilty.. and he says innocent.. so he follows what they say as a main reason.

Over here a judge and a jury wouldnt get chance to contradict eachother as only one of them would make a decision.

[Dentafrice]

Well I'm guessing this was a civil not criminal case, so there was no jury present.. just realized that.

So the judge was both the trier of fact and the trier of law. So the judge himself decided whether or not they were guilty/not guilty.. as well as decided the punishment.

So the judge could have been impartial, we don't know.

[N-Dubz]

Doctor's shouldn't have to perform on somebody if they dont believe in what there doing and plus was there just like one doctor in the whole place?
People sue for no reason nowdayz.

[PaintYourTarget]

But the thing is, they were referred to different Doctors willing to perform the treatment. They're not actually losing anything, just the inconvinience of having to do one more consultation. I might have been sympathetic to them if they hadn't been referred, but they're just being selfish.