A Michigan doctor refuses to treat lesbian couple’s baby, citing religion

[suzifrommd]

A Michigan doctor refuses to treat lesbian couple's baby, citing religion

February 19, 2015 3:29PM ET
by Marisa Taylor

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/19/michigan-doctor-refuses-to-treat-baby-of-lesbians.html

A Detroit-area pediatrician refused to treat a newborn baby girl because her parents are lesbians, according to local media reports that have highlighted a lack of legal protections for LGBT people in many states.

Krista and Jami Contreras brought their 6-day-old baby girl to see Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville, Michigan, for her first checkup in October 2014. They were dismayed when they were greeted by a different pediatrician, who told them Roi had "prayed about it" and decided she could not treat the baby for religious regions, the Detroit Free Press reported on Wednesday.

[LordKAT]

Now that is just plain wrong. What child that young has ever done anything to be denied medical no matter what your religious beliefs. It isn't like they are treating the parents and even refusing them would be wrong.

[sam1234]

I agree, that is just plain wrong. Dr.s take an oath to care for others regardless.
It doesn't matter if the parents are heterosexual or same sex couple. Religion is not a reason to deny treatment. Its just a handy excuse.

If the Dr. has that attitude, the child is better off seeing another Dr.

sam1234

[mrs izzy]

We all see this coming in the states.

Hold on to our hats it will get worst before it will get better.

Wait till the witch hunts start up again.

[Sunderland]

This is the first I've heard of someone denying a service to someone because of their parents. This is bigotry. The doctor cannot even hide behind the defense of refusing on religious grounds, because the baby is not the one the doctor has a problem with. Refusing to treat a baby is... You have to be an exceptionally scummy human being to sink that low. And she "prayed about it"? I'm not even a believer, and even I'm insulted at the insinuation that she thinks God led her to make such a truly heartless decision.

[Eva Marie]

We all see this coming in the states.

Exactly - legalized bigotry masquerading as religious beliefs.

It seems to be getting more and more popular judging by the sheer volume of the proposed legislation i've been seeing lately.

[King Malachite]

That doctor is a sick woman.  I can *somewhat* understand denying service to the couple (even though I think that's still wrong), but it's not like the baby has declared itself a homosexual.  It's a freaking baby!  I wonder how she would feel if she were to get into some horrible accident, and the surgeon's religious belief barred him/her from operating on her (and they "prayed" about it), and by the time they would have found someone else, she dies or some permanent damage has been done by then.  The shoe doesn't look so good on the other foot now....

[Wynternight]

Exactly - legalized bigotry masquerading as religious beliefs.

It seems to be getting more and more popular judging by the sheer volume of the proposed legislation i've been seeing lately.

What we're seeing is the last gasps of an ideology that loses more people by the day that it gains. Like any cornered animal it gets more dangerous but this will pass. The younger generations are a lot more accepting and a lot less tolerant of bigotry and hatred. This is our time and it scares those who can't accept it. We just need to make sure we stay safe and aware as this all goes on.

[Colleen M]

She has the right to refuse to treat patients.  It seems to me the definition of people who don't treat patients is "people without medical licenses." 

[Wynternight]

She has the right to refuse to treat patients.  It seems to me the definition of people who don't treat patients is "people without medical licenses."

The patient was a six day old child, not the parents. This may be legally clear by state law but it's definitely morally wrong and violates AMA standards.

[suzifrommd]

She has the right to refuse to treat patients.  It seems to me the definition of people who don't treat patients is "people without medical licenses."

Yes, she does. She has the right not to practice medicine.

However, once she opens her practice, she is subject to all laws that apply to any type of business. She can't refuse to treat someone because they're a person of color, for example, or because she doesn't like their religion.

[Colleen M]

The patient was a six day old child, not the parents. This may be legally clear by state law but it's definitely morally wrong and violates AMA standards.

I'm not actually worried about how old the patient is.  If she refuses to treat patients, she needs to have her license taken away. 

[LordKAT]

Legally doctors can refuse to treat anyone for any number of reasons.

http://www.injuryclaimcoach.com/treatment-denial.html

Can private doctors refuse to treat patients?

The short answer is, yes. A private doctor isn't subject to the provisions of EMTALA, and can dismiss you as a patient at any time (barring discrimination), for just about any reason, without fear of credible legal reprisals. Doctors in private practice are basically small business owners.

...Your doctor can refuse to continue treating you because:...

You are a disruptive patient.

For reasons of conscience (including religious, contraceptive, or palliative care beliefs, or deciding not to prescribe narcotics for pain management).

[Beth Andrea]

http://www.eastlakepeds.com/meet-the-doctors/vesna-l-roi--do.aspx

[Tysilio]

...Your doctor can refuse to continue treating you because:...

You are a disruptive patient.

For reasons of conscience (including religious, contraceptive, or palliative care beliefs, or deciding not to prescribe narcotics for pain management).

From the Code of Ethics of the American Medical Association:

Opinion 10.05 - Potential Patients
2.
<snip>
(b) Physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination (Opinion 9.12, "Patient-Physician Relationship: Respect for Law and Human Rights"), nor can they discriminate against patients with infectious diseases (Opinion 2.23, "HIV Testing").

It's permissible for doctors to refuse to carry out a particular treatment if doing so would violate their religious principles, but it is not OK to discriminate against persons for that or any other reason.

Dr. Roi behaved unethically. If Jamie and Krista Contreras chose to do so, they would likely have grounds for filing an ethics complaint with Michigan's licensing board. But I wouldn't  blame them if they didn't; I'd say they've done their bit by publicizing what happened.

[LordKAT]

I find it odd how what is legal and what is ethical don't necessarily match up.  The most the AMA can do is end your membership. From looking at the links provided by Beth, the doctor is not a member currently.

[Tysilio]

From looking at the links provided Beth, the doctor is not a member currently.

I missed that. But it's wonderful what a thorough public shaming can do... 

[LordKAT]

I missed that. But it's wonderful what a thorough public shaming can do... 

True, bad reviews can do thingsas well as good ones.

[Beth Andrea]

True, bad reviews can do thingsas well as good ones.

I noticed the clinic has a one-star rating. Perhaps the clinic will do the right thing and decide the dr. should look for her office elsewhere.

Like Antarctica...

[V M]

I just feel it messed up that a "medical professional" would deny treatment of a newborn child for any reason