Lesbian: Doctors denied artificial insemination because of religion

A lesbian woman will challenge an appeals court ruling that permitted two doctors to claim a religious defense in their refusal to artificially inseminate her.

A California appeals court last week sided with the doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, saying they can claim religious liberty in refusing to treat a patient who was gay because it was against their Christian beliefs.

Guadalupe Benitez filed a sexual-orientation discrimination suit against the doctors at a San Diego women's clinic after they refused to artificially inseminate her in 2000.

Benitez claims that on her first visit, Brody informed her that while her religious principles precluded her from performing the procedure on a gay woman, another doctor in the clinic would.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ct/20051212/cr_ct/lesbiandoctorsdeniedartificialinseminationbecauseofreligion

somone else to be gay?

disgusting bigots, not Christians. None of the real christians I know are against gay people.
Henry Rollins said it best: "If you're against gay rights, why don't you just go ahead and say I'M A HOMOPHOBE!" Or something to that effect.

These holy-rollers have gotten on my last nerve.

They have the right to consent like anyone else. If ther religion forbids them from undertaking a certain action, their position must be respected.

Whether we like it or not.

It's not as if the woman's ILL.

...to treating my Diabetes because that's "proof of the Devil operating in my life", or refuses treatment of a person with HIV because "Only Sodmites get that", that's OK?

Please show me in your bible where it says "verily, verily, let no man put the seed of another man into the womb of a woman who lays with womankind as a man, for that is an abomination, and both shall surely be put to death"?

Not even Leviticus covers that, and I don't recall Jeebus addressing the topic, either.

But that's always been one of my pet beefs with "religion"..."Oh, no, *I'M* not a Bigot, it's GAWD'S WORD!"

That's not the POINT.

Doctor's are viewed as a sort of resource that anyone's allowed simply to call on to get their shit sorted, it doesn't *work* like that. If a doctor refused to treat your diabetes on religious grounds he probably shouldn't be a doctor but there's no mileage in assuming the same sort of moral apparatus applies to artificial insemination! It isn't the same thing at ALL.

A doctor refusing to treat HIV patients because "only sodomites get that" is something I'd be very interested to hear about.

"a doctor refused to treat your diabetes on religious grounds he probably shouldn't be a doctor but there's no mileage in assuming the same sort of moral apparatus applies to artificial insemination! It isn't the same thing at ALL."

Oh, bullshit.

Medical conditions and legal medical procedures are the same.
It's the same damn thing as Pharmacists refusing to dispense "Plan B" because they love Feti more than women.

See, that's the point. Everyone would be aghast if a Doctor refused to treat a disease for some phony "moral" reason. One could make a case for my diabetes and obesity being the result of a failure on my part to "get my shit sorted", or a refusal to take "good advice", etc. In other words, a moral failing on MY part.

But let a Doctor say "I'm sorry, but I won't do this for you because it goes against what my pastor fills my head with every week" and people shrug and say "Oh, well, go find another doctor, I guess...."

And they shouldn't.

How long do you think I'd last in my job if I told my boss that I wouldn't repair "X" brand of equipment because I read in a letter from Jerry Foul-Well that Company X hires Gays, and that's immoral?

Fortunately, I've never had to experience a doctor who lets James Dobson get in the way of their Hippocratic Oath...

there is nothing violated in the Hippocratic Oath by refusing to perform an elective procedure.

So, I don't think citing the Oath means anything.

On this, you and I disagree. I fear there's little further we can go. Elective procedures to me are entirely different and one may *wish* that a practitioner's bigotry ( and it is bigotry, on THAT I agree with you ) would not get in the way of an elective procedure, but we cannot *expect* it, nor can we expect that all practitioner's will share our views. Nor we can we demand that other people do elective things to our bodies any more, hopefully, than they can demand to do elective things to ours. Curative is different, it alleviates suffering.

Oh, and incidentally, a womb is not *quite* the same thing as "X" brand of *equipment*!!! :wow: I can hardly believe you're making such a comparison it's part of someone's body, not a piece of a product!

Doctors *must* have the right to refuse to treat people who are not unwell. And unfortunately, this case has been complicated by the fact that the grounds the doctor has stated for refusing the insemination are stupid, but this is NOT an immoral decision because of that. The bigotry is patently obvious, of course.

I agree completely with you where you propose that a refusal to treat diabetes on ther grounds that the patient didn't heed advice would be ludicrous but I don't see how it relates to artifical insemination. The responsibility structure is different, so the moral structure is different.

Oh, and pharmacists are not doctors. Pharmacists are supposed to give out what doctors have told them to give out.

...and the doctor refused to inseminate her? I mean, it's not like she's sick, or anything.

This is a basic civil rights issue, and the doctor was WRONG. Why on earth do you say that doctors "MUST" have the right to refuse to treat people who are not unwell? How can you possibly justify that (hint: you can't).

It's not a CIVIL RIGHT to be inseminated.

I reeeeeeeeally don't think you want to try that approach. That this woman was denied healthcare services--elective or otherwise--based on her sexual orientation is most definitely a violation of her civil rights.

Glad to know where I stand with you.

It is a civil right to not be treated differently than someone else because of who you are. Period.

Artificial insemination is not the same thing as a hip replacement or treatment of a medical condition. There is some leeway allowed for judgment, whether flawed or not.

Does any couple who walks into an adoption office get a baby? Is adopting a baby a civil right? Agencies vary in their requirements and screening procedures. Some couples are denied because of age -- aren't their civil rights being harmed?

There are not just the couple's concerns here; there is a third human being involved, so it's not just a surgical procedure.

...and the doctor refused to inseminate her he is a sick bigotted fuck and he is ALLOWED TO ANYWAY.

This is *not* a civil rights issue, because nobody has the right to demand of doctors that they get certain elective treatments because, guess what, DOCTORS ARE NOT SLAVES. Being refused for an elective treatment on grounds that are based in bigotry and prejudice is suckful but it is in NO WAY an abrogation of civil rights, nobody has the RIGHT to elective treatments....

:wow:

Also, why is it that exchanging a black woman for a lesbian is supposed to change this position? Are black people somehow even more of a minority than lesbians? :eyes:

Yes, it is a violation of her civil rights. The fact that it was an elective procedure is absolutely irrelevant.

And if you don't understand why I chose to reframe it using an African-American woman....well, it's not worth explaining to you.

Doctor's are NOT slaves. Do you understand that your position treats these doctors as slaves?

If you genuinely believe not only that doctors exist simply to give patients what they want but also that patients should have the power to legally force doctors to do these things then you're opening doors onto unimaginable things.

"The fact that it was an elective procedure is absolutely irrelevant."

The fact that we are discussing an elective procedure is relevant in this way: they are not included in the Hippocratic Oath. There is no doctor on this planet who is morally required to perfom medically unnecessary procedures. You are wilfully ignoring this simple fact.

The grounds the doctor choose for refusal are of no consequence at all other than to highlight the doctor's own bigotry.

You seem to wish to treat these doctors minds and bodies as instruments, as your posessions that you are permitted to control. The doctors themselves don't even seem to *feature* in your thinking as *people*.

Even given the proposal that we treat this case as a contract not taken up by a professional we run into the quagmire of suing people not for bodging a contract, but not taking it up in the first place. This is medicine, not loft conversion.

"And if you don't understand why I chose to reframe it using an African-American woman....well, it's not worth explaining to you."

Code for - "I don't actually *know* why I reframed it with an African American woman".

I do. You thought it sounded somehow "even more bigotted" because you classify African American women as more socially discriminated against than lesbians. Which changes nothing, because no level of discrimination against you entitles you to treat another person as a slave.

My position in no way treats them as slaves. My position is that any service they offer to the public should be offered to ALL members of the public, and that no one should be excluded based on race, religious creed, sexual orientation or any other factor. That's not treating a doctor as a "slave"--and your contention to that effect is just odd. It's simply expecting the doctor to treat all his patients as societal equals.

You have such overwhelming empathy for the doctors, but none for the patient--why is that? And the relevance of the procedure being elective or not has absolutely nothing to do with the hippocratic oath. NOTHING to do with it (in fact, the hippocratic oath also forbids dispensing abortificants to woman--do you REALLY want to go down that road?). What is actually applicable in this case are the regulations of the state medical board and the ethical provisos of the AMA, so take a stab at that, if you think you can. I can, can you?

And no, it's not "code for 'I don't actually know.'" It's not "code" for anything. It's my way of telling you that you have major problems discerning what constitutes civil rights, and can't seem to understand the question when reframed in a manner that should make it easier for you to understand.

Your last paragraph is so self-contradictory as to border on the bizarre.

The fact that it's an elective procedure (a cash procedure, as most docs call it) is irrelevant.

Doctors can refuse care for any reason except in very few cases (here in Michigan, my husband, an internist, cannot refuse care to an HIV+ patient or in the case of an emergency). It's gets trickier when she's an established patient, as seems to be the case. Doctors cannot refuse care to established patients, legally, for any reason unless they terminate their doctor/patient relationship with that patient, and that often (depending on the state) has to be for cause and with a period of time for the patient to find a new doctor (usually 30 days).

Doctors refuse care all the time to patients they haven't established with. Sometimes, it's because they're too busy as it is, sometimes because they think they can't give the best care that patient deserves (not that great at that disease or whatever), and sometimes it's because they've had run-ins with that patient before and know him or her to be a problem patient (doesn't follow advice, abuses staff, doesn't pay bills, known drug abuser, theft, that sort of thing).

Doctors are not slaves, no (and that's kind of a bizarre assumption if you ask me) but they cannot discriminate against a person and refuse them services based on their sexual orientation.

Oh, no...they wouldn't. watch the HBO documentary, "Southern Comfort" sometime. It's all about a friend of mine, Robert Eads...a female to male transsexual who had ovarian cancer. Twenty fucking oncologists refused to treat him for his cancer until he finally found a doctor who would. by then, it was too fucking late.

RIP, Robert!

I'll be on the lookout for it to watch. Gays still have a long way to go but I've seen progress towards acceptance in my lifetime. Transexuals are almost just beginning the process. I can't believe that oncologists refused treatment. Sickening.

"a female to male transsexual who had ovarian cancer"

It sounds like the doctor who did the operation didn't exactly do his job.

On what grounds did these oncologists refuse treatment? Was it his transgendered status?

If that and that alone, THAT is a violation of the Oath and is truly disgusting.

They have the right to refuse care, but that doesn't make it right. I'm so sorry that such a horrible, horrible thing happened.

Doctors refusing to assist a woman because she is gay.

Legalized killing endorsed "eye for an eye".

It does happen to center around the old testament philosophy, certainly not the teachings of Christ.

I don't know how progressives can defend this decision.

I see your frustration but the these are hardly examples of the US turning into a theocracy. The death penalty is nothing new and as far as the doctor is concerned... there are MULTIPLE religions that would allow for a doctor to opt out of a procedure like this. Second, it doesn't violate any professional standard of the hippocratic oath.

be bigoted assholes if they want to. Their profession, however, comes with certain responsibilities that cannot be influenced by bigotry.

What if they refused to treat Blacks or Jews or Mexicans? Nobody would give them the benefit of the doubt then....

Whether or not their decisions seem morally appropriate to you is INCIDENTAL. This is medicine we're talking about, poking stuff in and out of other people's bodies, how would you like it if someone came up to you and demanded that you have a responsibility to hack their leg off because they identify as an amputee? (which has happened, incidentally)

Doctors have responsibilities to their patients, NOT the general public, their PATIENTS, and they have a RIGHT to decide who is and who is not one of their PATIENTS. Before they have accepted the case, no-one has any right to jump up and down and say what the doctor's responsibilities to any particular individual are.

Also, it seems unlikely to me that the insemination in question will not go ahead, she can find another practitioner.

This isn't about some grand, remote authority figure demanding from a fictional "on-high" that lesbians shouldn't be inseminated, this is a doctor saying that THEY are not going to do it.

Cutting somebody's leg off just because they want to would get a doctor's license revoked for sure and it violates their professional oaths, performing artificial insemination to one of your patients is not.



So you think it would be ok for a doctor to refuse to do this procedure on a black woman because they think blacks are evil for example?

"Cutting somebody's leg off just because they want to would get a doctor's license revoked for sure"

http://futurefeedforward.com/confounding_extremities.pdf

Depdends where you practice. Have a look at the first few paragraphs of that doc.

"So you think it would be ok for a doctor to refuse to do this procedure on a black woman because they think blacks are evil for example?"

YES! My God, what do you think medicine IS? What do you think doctors ARE?

Do you think it would be okay to legally force a doctor to castrate the 13 year old son in your custody because he'd just identified as gay?

It is NOT okay for doctors to be bigotted about lesbians or black people or Muslims or anything.

It IS okay for a doctor to refuse to perform delicate ELECTIVE clinical procedures on people who want to be their patients under circumstances that he or she personally finds morally repugnant, whether his or her morals are okay or NOT.

Why did you think exchanging a black woman for a lesbian was going to change my position? Are black people even more minor than lesbians? I'm sorry, I don't see rights as a sort of sliding scale...

why should it be ok for them to act according to those biases. Sorry, but intolerance is no valuable excuse for any behavior in my book. All discrimination should be punishable, and I don't understand how some people who say discrimination is wrong are so quick to excuse it.

It's illegal to refuse care for HIV+ patients in most states, as those have been dealt with in the law, but they can refuse care for no reason at all. It's their right.

Are there bigots out there who refuse to treat people of a certain race or sexuality? Probably, but then, they probably don't make much money, either. Remember, doctors often set aside personal feelings to treat people just as good medicine and also as more billing to help with their bottom lines.

I know doctors who are really uncomfortable treating known drug addicts, but they do it anyway. There's also an internist in town whose sign says that he practices "Biblically based medicine," whatever that is. From the look of things, he's not that known or successful.

Trust me, if they refused care to an established patient in an improper manner (and it sounds like they did), that practice is screwed. It's already hard enough for Ob/Gyns to get malpractice insurance--no one will want them after screwing up this badly.

gonna get away with it. I just think it's fucking wrong.

I'd have gotten a lawyer, too, if it had happened to me.

They didn't administer the tests she took and the surgeries she was treated to for free. They took her on as a client and after she'd already spent a wad, said, 'sorry, we can't complete this, you're a lesbian."

..

They had established a doctor/patient relationship with that patient, and you cannot deny care to an established patient without cause and a period of time (usually 30 days) and help the patient find a new doctor.

They were idiots, and I'm sure their lawyer is mad as hell at them. I'd put good money on it that none of them took health law in med school like my hubby did, or they'd know better.

I mean, lesbianism aside, if a couple whom the doctor judges as inappropriate parents walks in their office, shouldn't the doctor be able to make a judgement call?

It's not the same as "protecting" the patient's health.

That aren't actually illnesses. Otherwise you're opening a BIG old door into god knows WHAT.

That's the legal issue.

Doctors can always deny care to someone they haven't established a doctor/patient relationship with, but things get stickier with an established patient. It sounds like she was an established patient, which is why there's a lawsuit.

If they're morally against legal, common procedures, they should not be doctors. Period.

"If they're morally against legal, common procedures, they should not be doctors. Period."

That's quite a generalisation, there, dude.

Many doctors set aside their beliefs for the practice of good medicine. Some don't. Ultimately, the doctor in this case is choosing to give up thousands of dollars for a cash procedure. I'm amazed the practice partners went along with it.

Doctors have the right to deny care. They cannot deny care after establishing a doctor/patient relationship (that means, after they've given care of any kind) unless they give the patient time to find a new doctor who will treat them (usually 30 days, but it depends on the state).

The doctor's mistake was in giving a reason and then not helping her find another doctor to treat her. If she said that someone else in the practice would take her on as a patient, then someone else should've.

Doctors have rights, too. I agree that it was a terrible reason to deny care, but it is that doctor's perogative. Sheesh--it's a cash procedure (hardly any insurance companies cover that kind of stuff), and doctors have even more leniency on denying care when it comes to cash procedures.

because of some religious or personal conviction. Don't be a doctor if you can't do the job.

the hippocratic oath thing means nothing? what if they'd claimed their 'religion' allowed 'em to refuse someone because of their ethnicity? or disability?

This is a difficult issue because it speaks to whether or not someone should be REQUIRED through their professional codes to perform certain services. For example, it is understandable that a Jewish lawyer might not want to assist in the legal aid of a neo-Nazi group so it may well be reasonable that a doctor would refuse to perform certain services due to religious beliefs. In the case of elective procedures such as artificial insemination this can be understood but what about in potentially life-threatening situations? For example, what if a doctor who was a Jehova's Witness refused to perfrom a blood transfusion because it was against his beliefs? Ultimately, what codes are to be followed and still allow for religious freedom?

patients. Same religious convictions as fundies have towards gays, same discrimination, same pulling of their licenses when they do refuse to treat these patients, regardless of whether it is an "elective" procedure or no.

Elective procedures should not be held to the same standard as essential care.

...if the AMA would censure doctors who show bigotry in refusing to perform elective procedures on certain patients.

And we should perhaps say "urgent care." I'll bet that some transsexuals could make a convincing case for the essential nature of sex-change procedures. I certainly don't mean to ignore their needs. Sexual identity is something most of us take for granted, so much so that it could be a necessity.

This transsexual will tell you there is NOTHING ELECTIVE about transsexual procedures. It came down to me living as a woman, or dying as a man. It got to the point where, if I could not get the surgery, I was ready to perform self-surgery. Now, how elective do you think it is?

When someone can be that mentally tortured by the sight, and knowledge of their incorrect birth genitalia?

For most people, thank the dear Lord...their gender identity matches their physical anatomy. I would not with Gender Identity Dysphoria on my worst enemy! How would you like to wake up every day, disgusted with the body you are in, feeling like an alien in your own body?

If I haven't convinced you yet, try this: Imagine that you go to bed one night...and wake up the next day in the body of the opposite gender you are now...but still with the same brain...the same feelings, the same experiences...everything the same, except now you are the opposite anatomical sex of what you were the night before. You'd be HORRIFIED...wouldn't you?

Well, that is what happens to a transsexual EVERY morning!

Yet, insurance does not cover our procedures, and no payment plan is available...it's cash on the barrel head or forget about it. and with the discrimination we face in the workplace...and the obstacles placed in our way by the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) who sets the guidelines concerning sex-change procedures, and who is a viable candidate for surgery...fully 90 percent of those who seek sex-reassignment..never achieve their goal.

I'm one of the lucky few who did. And I continue to pay for it every day of my life with continuing LEGAL discrimination in the workplace....our relationships and marriages are questioned, invalidated, annulled, our rights stripped from us, our standing...and sometimes our very right to exist is called into question.

Did you know that 70 percent of transgender people are un- and or under-employed? SEVENTY PERCENT!!
Did you know that a post-operative transsexual woman has a one-in-seventeen chance of being married, post-operative....and a one-in-twelve chance of being MURDERED post-operative? IN OTHER WORDS, A POST-OP TRANSSEXUAL, LIKE ME...HAS A GREATER CHANCE OF BEING MURDERED THAN BEING MARRIED!!

Really think about that for a minute. How many people do you know that it is more likely they will be murdered than married?

Now...how did I get my surgery, you ask??

Well, I won a discrimination lawsuit against a former employer. They lost on two levels, and threatened to continue dragging it out, appealing...or I could settle. The settlement offer amounted to at least putting me back where I was, so to speak, in terms of what I'd actually lost, up to that point, and so I settled. Terms of the settlement forbid me from disclosing the name of the company, nor the amount received...and also, terms of the settlement include no admission of guilt by said employer...but also forces them to cease and desist any further activities of giving false and misleading references to potential future employers, limiting them to only giving dates and rate of pay...and also prohibits them from disclosing my previous name, or gender. They are required now to refer to me only under my new name and gender.

Well, with the money I got from the settlement, I was able to go halfway around the world, to Thailand, where medical care is cheaper...and get my surgery done there...in a foriegn country, where half the people do not even speak the same language (so you can imagine how difficult it might be to communicate with your own medical staff!!) and with no one that you love or care about anywhere nearby to come visit you in the hospital. You are truly alone. But it only cost $3,850 plus $898 round-trip airfare...as opposed to $13,000 it would have cost me in Canada...or $16,000 minimum it would have cost me in the United States.

In essence...in my case, the company that discriminated against me for being a transsexual...wound up financing my surgery. Poetic justice if ever there was any!

Gender Identity Disorder is a real thing and I feel for the people that have it but it doesn't reach the state of essential or urgent care that I'm speaking of. Mainly I'm talking about life-saving procedures in the emergency room or something along those lines.

I just don't believe a doctor has the right to be forced to perform any procedure, especially elective procedures or even those such as yours that are uncomfortable (but not life threatening), that is against his or her moral or religious convictions. Doctors are not slaves.

Now, HOSPITALS should also be free to be able to contract ONLY with doctors who will perform as wide a range of procedures as possible. I'm speaking mainly of doctors with thier own practices.

Sorry, lawyers don't ahve to defend or represent everything that comes their way and Doctors shouldn't have to perform acts that are morally repugnant to them.

Why would elective procedures be any harder to get for certain groups of society based upon the beliefs of the professionnals who are supposed to d this sort of thing?

This is the same issue as pharmacists refusing to fill prescreptions for the pill, it's just plain wrong.

their lobby, or available as a part of their info packet that they send to new patients. Then people can screen them without having to go through these sorts of problems. Same with pharmacists. If they have a problem, fine, they just lose the business of all those who are uncomfortable with their objections. This wouldn't really solve the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.

that's a very good suggestion. I agree.

...refer her, maybe, to another doctor that will treat her and case closed. She could probably get a little money for "pain and suffering" and may well deserve it, too. But, ultimately, the doctor has the choice.

They took her on as patient,. administered the tests, then found out she was gay and refused to go any further. My Mom and sister are both nurses, and I asked them about this -- they said this is illegally in their states (NC and OK) -- major lawsuit. She was a patient, and the procedure had been initiated.

All Doctors are permitted to NOT perform abortions because of religious beliefs. There's no difference here.

Pick up the phone and call the different clinics. I'm sure she'll find several Dr's who will do what she wants.

And to the poster who said "How can a doctor refuse treatment?" What treatment????? What in the world are they treating? This is not a treatment, it's a service that some Drs are not willing to perform.

Just on Lesbian's. If the doctor said he wouldn't do it because she was Black or Catholic, people would call it what it is, discrimination. The problem is, that good people don't allow discrimination to happen and say and do nothing, just because they can go somewhere else. I mean Blacks, pre-civil rights, could get a meal at a restaurant that serves them, so what the hell were they complaining about!(sarcasm)

So this doctor isn't saying he finds fertility treatment unethical, that seems to actually be the line of work the doctor is in. So it has nothing in common with a doctor who refuses to do abortions. It would be like an abortion doctor, who refused to do abortions for Lesbians.

They bled as much money as they could from her, then, when it came down to brass tacks, got rid of her. Sooooo illegal.

Maybe she doesn't have ready access to transportation.

Maybe her HMO doesn't list a lot of doctors in her area.

There are numerous complications.

> What in the world are they treating?

Infertility through impotence, analogous to how Viagra is used to treat male impotence. In this era of sperm banks and sonograms and tomato-flounder hybrids, would it not be grossly unethical to require that a woman have intercourse with a man in whom she has no sexual interest to become pregnant when there are so many alternatives?

I am a transsexual. Back before my operation, when I was on hormones, I moved to Louisville, KY from Pennsylvania...so I needed a new doctor for my hormones.

I went to University of Louisville Hospital where a Middle-Eastern doctor kept me waiting 2 1/2 hours...then saw me. He seemed intensely curious as to whether I had male or female genitalia. I told him I was pre-op.

Nevertheless, he found it necessary to see for himself, and he looked up my skirt. Now, transsexuals who are pre-op generally do not want their birth genitalia looked at, or touched...but, with a doctor who is going to be treating you, you have to make allowances.

After he looked up my skirt, he left the room, and returned five minutes later with the head of the Endocrinology Department. They informed me they would not treat me, due to their religious convictions. I exploded..."yeah, well, his religious convictions sure didn't stop that slimy pervert from looking up my skirt, did it? He knew goddamn well he wasn't going to treat me, medically...and yet, still found it necessary to look up my skirt!!"

I filed a complaint against the doctor and the hospital with the Jefferson County Medical Board. They reveiewed my case, and called a meeting, which I was invited to attend, one month later. By then, I'd found an endocrinologist who WOULD treat me.

The doctors involved in my complaint were both rebuked by their peers, and I was asked what I felt would be an adequate course of action in the future. I told them that we transsexuals didn't want to hear about anyone else's "religious convictions" and that, if they didn't have a MEDICAL reason to deny treatment, we did not want to hear it.

I then proposed that, since I knew this doctor who WOULD treat people...and they did not want to...that they could merely refer patients to this other doctor, explaining that, since they had little or no experience ini treating transsexual patients, they felt uncomfortable doing so, and would prefer them to see this doctor, who had more experience...and leave their fucking "religious convictions" out of it altogether.

This was agreed upon as an adequate future response, and I never heard any more about it...but, THAT is the proper way for a doctor to handle something like that. Make an excuse, refer the patient to someone who WILL treat them, and keep their "religious convictions" to themselves! If there is no viable MEDICAL reason to deny treatment, then that is how it ought to be handled.

We don't care to hear of their so-called "religious convictions."

:applause:
You showed class and courage. Your suggestions for how people ought to be treated in the future went beyond your personal experience to compassionately help others.

Hekate

I merely did what I did so that my sisters and brothers, following in my footsteps, would not have to put up with the bullshit I had to. The road to sex-reassignment is hard enough, without having to deal with a bigoted asshole with too many "religious convictions" to do certain medical procedures for non-medical reasons...and yet too few "religious convictions" to resist taking a peek up my skirt!

I had never before in my life been so outraged!

By telling you to go fuck off because of their "Religious Convictions".

That's the best thing I've read all day. I'm so glad you followed through and those frickin' idiots got what was coming to them. Even better, I'm glad you found a doctor in that area who would treat you.

Any slimeball who would look up a skirt and then refuse treatment should get kicked in the face. That's just my opinion, though. ;)

Were there passages prohibiting artficial insemination? Lesbianism? Never saw a word about either one that I can recall.

I wonder if women who have been refused birth control can sue based on the same thing! Especially if those same pharmacists are providing Viagra to men. :shrug:

Just because you go to a doctor and request an elective proceedure, doesn't mean that s/he has to perform it.

ear crops because of ethical reasons. We referred them to a vet who did. Simple, and everybody was happy, except for the poor dog :(

Who do these lesbians think that they are anyway, Christians lacking enough faith in God to make a baby without artificial help from science?! Really!

Next thing is that they will be wanting medicines which are reserved exclusively for Christians who lack enough faith for God to heal them!

Really!

1. Artificial insemination is not a procedure that is necessary for the woman's health, life or continuing well-being. If she was being denied standard medical treatment because she was gay, then it would be discrimination.
2. The doctor(s) have the right to refuse to provide this service, due to their religious beliefs. The woman can find a different doctor to perform the procedure. It's California, it can't be a problem.
3. There is no law preventing her from going and finding some guy to impregnate her. Didn't she see "The Big Lebowski"?

Personally, I don't have a problem with lesbians having babies and same sex couples raising children together as a family. I'd like to see gay marriage legalized and have no objections to gay couples adopting children. But that doesn't mean I think that the government should force christian adoption agencies to allow gay adoptions, or fundamentalist churches to marry gay couples, or christian doctors to perform artifical insemination on a gay woman.

When they took her (or her insurors') money, they agreed to do the job.

They agreed to do it when they established a relationship. The doctor/patient relationship was established when she met with the doctor, and the doctor reviewed everything, examined her, and then set forth a course of action. Once that relationship is established, then it's hard to refuse care for any reason.

So I'm not sure the Hippocratic oath applies here. It's a bit like telling doctors they MUST perform abortions.

Elective procedures are still covered in the doctor/patient relationship. If they were going to terminate that, there were steps they needed to follow much earlier than they did and things they didn't do.

Doctors can always refuse care for any reason, but it's harder when it's with an established patient. Since she was an established patient, then to refuse care, they needed to do it properly, which is sure sounds like they didn't.

BTW - this story is over a week old. Yahoo apparently just got around to adding it:

The woman, Guadalupe Benitez, sued the doctors after she was turned down for artificial insemination in 1999. She claimed that on her first visit to the women's clinic in a suburb of San Diego, California, one of the doctors, Christine Brody, told her that she would not perform the procedure on a lesbian because of her faith.

She was initially told that another doctor at the clinic would perform the procedure but after nearly a year of being put off, Ms Benitez alleges that Dr Brody told her nobody in the four-person clinic would treat her. The other doctor named in the suit is Douglas Fenton.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1657878,00.html

When Guadalupe Benitez's health care provider referred her to the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group (NCWMG) in 1999, she was told that the medical facility was the only provider of obstetrics and gynecology available under her plan. Eager to conceive, she spent the next 11 months seeking fertility treatments at the San Diego-based NCWMG.

......
Citing a federal law that regulates employee health care plans, the trial court said Benitez was not entitled to bring a state civil rights claim against Brody and the NCWMG because their services are paid for through an employer-provided health plan.
....
Haller complained in a recent press statement that Benitez' health care plan made no effort to provide a covered alternative to the NCWMG, forcing her to incur thousands of dollars in medical expenses for the procedure to be performed by an outside Ob/Gyn provider.

"Ms. Benitez' plan provided for fertility care," Haller said. "Her health care plan should have covered her medical expenses in any event. It is their responsibility under the plan."


http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1186181.html

The case arose after Benitez and her partner, Joanne, decided to have a child. Because Benitez suffered from a common gynecological condition, the couple sought help from the only ob-gyn provider available through Benitez’s employer-provided health plan: the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group. For nearly a year, the clinic and doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton prescribed fertility medications and performed various tests on Benitez, but continually delayed performing the simple insemination procedure that Benitez needed. After eleven months of accepting payment for her care and repeatedly promising to perform the procedure, North Coast’s medical director admitted that Benitez would never receive it because of the personal religious beliefs about gay people held by members of the clinic’s staff.

Benitez had to begin her treatment all over again with a medical provider outside the plan, which ended up costing her thousands of dollars. She’s since given birth to a healthy baby boy.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/cases/record?record=222

This turns it into a contractual dispute. The clinic is wrong for backing out of a promised procedure, and should pay for the couples' fertility expenses.

But whatever the race, religion, or sexual orientation of the patients, physicians are STILL not the personal servants/slaves of any patient who comes in demanding an elective procedure.

I have friends who are plastic surgeons, and they retain the right to refuse to perform surgery on any patient. Sometimes their refusal is based purely on "instinct" -- knowing that the patient is psychologically not fit to deal with a changed appearance. This is a matter of judgment, and to remove that physician's right of refusal is to turn all M.D.'s into obedient automatons.

the business....Many others don't agree with your position, get with it....

All she has to do is find a man.