[Gay State Conservative]

It's not the child's fault that his/her “parents” are perverts.The child's entitled to any care he/she needs.

[cripplecreek]

I’m betting the story is BS anyway.

I’ve got a militant lesbian cousin and I’ve seen how they work. Before gay “marriage” was legal in Minnesota my cousin and her partner went to a bank for a loan to buy a house. The bank refused to list them as married because that would be fraud. The bank was willing to give them a joint loan but not as a married couple.

They refused the loan and stomped off throwing a tantrum claiming the bank denied them a loan because they’re lesbians.

[daniel1212]

It's not the child's fault that his/her “parents” are perverts.The child's entitled to any care he/she needs.

But which requires a close relationship with the parents, which in this case would not be feasible, nor that of a Jewish pediatrician with Nazi loving parents.

This was not a refusal to provide emergency care, or services at all, but only with a different doctor.

What the pediatrician should have done was have a heart to heart talk with the adoption parents, explaining her desire for the best for the child, but how that there would be conflict due to her objection to how the child would be raised. And that thus she was transferring them to a different pediatrician.

And which she should have the freedom to do, but not to deny needed care if there was not one else to provide it.

[onedoug]

I agree. One is either a healer or not.

[Steve_Seattle]

"It's not the child's fault that his/her “parents” are perverts.The child's entitled to any care he/she needs."

My initial reaction was like yours, but then I thought it through a bit further. First of all, the child was not sick, nor was this an emergency. The child's appointment was honored on the same day at the same as it was originally scheduled, the only difference being that a different doctor provided the service. The child was NOT put in jeopardy at any point. This is NOT about "punishing the child."

The second point is that the doctor/patient relationship has an almost sacred character, and that it is important for both doctors and patients when - in a relationship that is ongoing, as would be a relationship between a pediatrician and the child's parents - that they share the same basic values, the same moral understandings, and even a common worldview. Doctors and their clients must be on the same page on these things, or they resist serious conflicts down the road.

It is COMMON for patients to reject doctors because "he doesn't understand me" or "I don't trust his judgment" or "he doesn't believe in naturopathy" or "he is condescending" or "I don't want a woman giving me a prostate exam." All sorts of things! And I am sure doctors sometimes encourage patients to find a doctor who is more in tune with their own ideas about what constitutes proper medicine.

In this case, the doctor was doing the parents a favor in steering them towards a doctor with whom they would be more likely to have a harmonious relationship. The child did NOT suffer because of this.

[wiggen]

i agree with you 100%. On the other hand i do believe a service provider should have the ability to say no. It’s a private enterprise. In my opinion denying care to the infant was callous and perhaps stupid. It’s definitely not Christian to cast the sins of the parent upon the child.

[Lurker]

“The child’s entitled to any care he/she needs. “

Do you mean to say that this child is somehow entitled to the labor of this doctor even though he doesn’t want to provide it? You might want to think that all the way through.

No one is entitled to the labor of another for any reason.

L