(California) State Supreme Court says doctors must treat gays and lesbians

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Doctors in California must treat gays and lesbians the same as any other patient, regardless of religious objections, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

In a unanimous decision, the court rejected a San Diego County fertility clinic's attempt to use its physicians' religious beliefs as a justification for their refusal to provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple.

Guadalupe Benitez sued North Coast Women's care in Vista and two of its doctors, saying they told her in 2000 that because she was a lesbian their Christian beliefs prohibited them from performing intrauterine insemination for her. The doctors later claimed they would have refused the treatment for any unmarried couple.

... In language that would apply equally to abortions, Kennard said doctors who have religious objections to a particular procedure or treatment can refuse to perform it for any patient, but can't selectively reject gays and lesbians. She said they also have the option of referring a patient to someone else at the clinic who will perform the procedure, an option that wasn't available in this case.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/18/BA2212D6H4.DTL&tsp=1

,... a Court ruling in the year of 2008 is ludicrous in itself.....

I expect right wing religious boards blow a few fuses over the next few days over this.

Nothing moral in it, and it didn't urge me to switch, but it did use terminology like "the choice to engage in homosexual activities.." or "this inherently dangerous lifestyle..." Mostly it was just a rundown of the biological ramifications of homosexual sex (mmmm...incontinence caused by sphincter damage) and how to avoid them. Lots of safe sex tips.

The guy has never actually said a word against gays or lesbians, but he's let it be known that he disapproves. I still see him because otherwise he's a damned good doctor (never makes his patients wait, keeps time open for emergency morning appointments, and will even do housecalls on occasion...how unheard of is THAT!??!)

Since there is no unique type of "homosexual sex," those tips on safe sex might be irrelevant to a gay couple who don't engage in unsafe sex, and highly relevant to a straight couple who do.

Yes, some gay people engage in activities that might cause sphincter damager. However, lots of gay people don't engage in any such type of activity, and many straight people do. Is he asking all his female heterosexual patients if they ever engage in such activities? Does it occur to him that they might be at risk? Is he asking all his male "heterosexual" patients if they ever engage in sex with other men, even if they don't consider themselves to be gay? He might be very surprised by some of the answers. Others of his patients will keep their sexual activities quiet and never reveal that they might be at risk.

And, as a lesbian, I can tell you that lesbians are probably least at risk for issues caused by invasive sex, but that is by no means universal either. People get up to all kinds of things in the privacies of their homes, and they way they identify in public may not be a good indicator of their private behavior. That goes for so-called straight people too.

Your doctor would provide a more effective public service - and one that is far less bigoted - if he handed out safe sex brochures to every single one of his patients, regardless of what he might think he knows about their sex lives.

Suggest it to him.

The court is attacking their freedoms..

as in their freedom to attack the freedoms of others.

Why is it that the right complains about being oppressed when anyone attacks their right to oppress others?

"Health Care Without Shame: A Handbook for the Sexually Diverse and Their Caregivers" by Dr. Charles Moser. While the purpose of the book was to address the medical needs of a sexually diverse community, the discussions are applicable to everyone. It is a great read. I gave my copy to a nurse who provides home care to those with serious deseases such as AIDS.

they or a loved one were wheeled into an ER and the duty physician said "I can't treat him because of his religious beliefs"?

as far as i know, they don't do a criminal background check on patients.

so they'll do the procedure for murderers and rapists, gamblers and druggies, adulterers, liers, cheaters, stealers, and all manner of sinners.

hell, they'll even do the procedure on single people, i believe.

but partner another woman and, well now, that's just too much!

And our numbers grow daily. : )

:shrug:

Just curious.

is that the Drs were willing to begin the treatment(very expensive) before refusing. I think that point alone guaranteed them losing. Why did they not simply refuse from the get go.This reeks of fraud.

I just found how stupid is that the supreme court has to rule for a basic human right that everybody should have.
We may need a new constitution, the existing ones is full of holes and patches.