Comments on: Gay, HIV groups call for end of Bush health care rules

By: Chelsea

Chelsea — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:31:24 +0000

Wow! I feel the vitriol. I completely agree that it is WRONG for ANY doctor to discriminate…they took an oath to care for patients, and any personal bias’ SHOULD be left out of the equation. However, hospitals should be more responsible in screening their employees for innate bias’. For instance, before criminal trials, the question is often asked to jury members “would you be willing to inact the death penalty?” Could the question not be asked of hospital employees, “would you have any problem treating LGBT patients under any circumstances?” This would place the responsibility of having fair doctors on hospitals and not individuals.

By: MNBear

MNBear — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:27:50 +0000

I think a lot of the contention springs from a lack of clarity in defining just what constitutes the “discrimination” at issue. Ms. Pizer did an excellent job drawing the crucial distinction between “religious discrimination” on the one hand, and “termination for refusal to perform one’s job” on the other.

The former (say, firing a doctor simply *because he’s a Muslim*) is illegal – obviously should be illegal – and will remain illegal even after Obama’s repeal of the Bush regulations. (Maybe this is what you’re addressing, Chelsea?)

But let’s say another doctor, who adheres to a particularly strict form of fundamentalist Islam, offers this as a reason for refusing to treat any female patients. Obama’s removal of the Bush regulations will render it lawful to terminate the doctor for this reason – and this is as it should be. Employers have a right to expect employees to perform the defined functions of their job, and patients have a right against undue interference with their health care.

What’s more, the second example – refusal to perform – simply doesn’t compare well with other forms of employment discrimination law. Racial and religious-*belief* discrimination are banned because these characteristics simply do not impact one’s ability to perform; reasonable accommodations are mandated because they *enable* the challenged individual to fulfill the requirements of her job. A flat refusal to render treatment simply doesn’t compare, since the job ends up not being performed…

By: Nikki

Nikki — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:35:29 +0000

Isn’t a medical doctor who doesn’t want to perform certain aspects of his profession because of his religion like ae prostitute in a brothel who refuses to have sex with people because it violates her religion? Why get a job that you can’t perform in?

I wonder what will happen if racist doctors start refusing to treat black people based on religion. Lawsuit? According to this law, they would be protected.

By: Chris Sullivan

Chris Sullivan — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:51:57 +0000

BOTTOM LINE: If your job requires you to serve the general public and doing parts of that job are in conflict with your “ethics” – get another F@CKING JOB!

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:18:56 +0000

What if the medical practioner doesn’t like blacks or hispanics because they are of the “religious” belief in white supremacy? What if they are of the religious belief that you shouldn’t take any meds or have blood transfusions etc (those religions exist). Point being, some people are of the opinion that it is “OK” to allow their own personal beliefs to over-ride others personal decisions. We all have personal beliefs that other may not share, but when we go to work, we have to put our personal beliefs aside and do our jobs in accordance with the company the law. It doesn’t matter what our own personal beliefs are they do not trump the rules we all have to follow at work!!!! VERY VERY dangerous to allow “religion” to dictate medical decisions for any reason.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:17:04 +0000

I had a VA primary care provider deny my request for a refill of Vardinafil (Levetra) that another VA DR had proscribed. Her reason for denying my refill, “In all good conscience, I can’t refill it because of who you sleep with.”
I now have to travel 30 miles further to see a different VA clinic to get my perscriptions.

By: Chris Sullivan

Chris Sullivan — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:12:51 +0000

Chelsea – Are you f@cking kidding me? That statemnt is just too damn ignorant to even respond further to.

By: Bud Burgoon-Clark

Bud Burgoon-Clark — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:50:34 +0000

@ CHELSEA:

Have an emergency plan? What planet are YOU from?? I HAVE an emergency plan: it involves calling 911 and having the expectation that the EMTs will treat me competently, courteously, and expeditiously, EVEN though my same-sex partner is anxiously holding my hand.

The University of California San Diego hospital and the local Roman “Catholic” hospital are within blocks of each other.

I have instructed our neighborhood EMTs and my family NEVER to take me to the Roman “Catholic” hospital UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Despite California law, they do not recognize my marriage and will not allow my husband access to me.

The Roman “Catholic” hospital requires CONSTANT lawsuits to keep them in line.

When my late partner was in there some years ago, they used to refuse to come into his room to deliver his MEALS!

Medical personnel who cannot treat all equally should be FORCED out of the profession!

By: LOrion

LOrion — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:19:38 +0000

Speaking as a retired physician…you are so WRONG Chelsea.
All during my career there were many, many doctors, including infectious disease specialists who refused to care for HIV/AIDS patients. They still will not!
Also, many if not most, will not treat patients with sexual identity problems, and they are using rules like these to escape being called for it.
I thought these rules were among the early ones rescinded by the Obama Administration, if not they need to be ASAP!

By: Dave W

Dave W — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:51:43 +0000

Religious belief is delusional and cannot be allowed to influence healthworkers, who are supposedely scientists.

If a pharmacy is to find out their pharmacist won’t sell a product, he/she should be fired! If not, why do they even purport to be a pharmacy?

I certainly wouldn’t shop at a pharmacy that hires people who do not sell all of their products…what kind of pharmacy is that? What else are they doing, holding seances to determine who should be treated?

This religion crap is just sick and we have a constitution that is supposed to protect us from delusional beliefs. Obama doesn’t seem to get it, yet, hopefully with the humanists and atheists challenging him he will.