Lesbian Lawsuit Assails a Christian Doctor

NewsMax ^ | March 4, 2003 | Amanda Manno

[Milltownmalbay]

Should a physician be able to refuse treatment because of his or her religious beliefs? Does a patient have the right to demand that a medical provider cover a procedure that may be morally repugnant to the doctors performing the surgery?

These are the questions that are being raised in a controversial court case which pits lesbian Guadolupe Benitez, who demands to be artificially inseminated, against Dr. Christine Brody, who refuses to perform the procedure.

The controversy began in 1999, reports CNS News.com, when Ms. Benitez sought to be artificially inseminated and was sent by her health care provider to North Coast Women's Care Medical Group (NCWMG). Evidently, Dr. Brody's facility is the only provider of obstetrics and gynecology under Ms. Benitez's plan.

Citing her Christian faith, Dr. Brody declined to treat Ms. Benitez, and referred her to another physician outside her plan. If Ms. Benitez had used this outside doctor, she would have had to pay for the artificial insemination out of her own pocket.

Benitez sued Dr. Brody and NCWMG based on a California law designed to prevent discrimination by business and health care providers. A San Diego court dismissed the lawsuit four years ago saying that it was without merit.

However, the controversy did not end there. Now Ms. Benitez has teamed up with Lambda Legal, a homosexual legal advocacy group claiming among other things, trauma from discrimination because she a homosexual. The case is currently before the California Court of Appeals.

If Benitez succeeds in convincing the court of the merits of her claim, it could have widespread repercussions for physicians who object as a matter of conscience to a whole host of controversial medical procedures.

Amanda Manno is a student at St. Joseph by-the-Sea High School in Staten Island, New York.

[Hodar]

If this were a private practice, I would support the good Doctor. However, the doctor is working, and being paid to provide services through a HMO type of agency. The woman has paid for her medical coverage; and should be granted the services. If she were single, and heterosexual, would the Doctor still refuse under moral grounds? If she were a minority, wishing to have a white donor, could the Doctor refuse again?

Bottom line, unless the Doctor is in private practice, or the paycheck from her employer bounces; she should have to perform the proceedure, regardless of how she may feel about the patient.

[Guillermo]

Since when does NewMax have high school students filing stories??

[ClearCase_guy]

The woman has paid for her medical coverage; and should be granted the services.

I suppose the HMO is required to grant the service. But the HMO better find a physician to help them out. The particular physician mentioned in the article is not so obligated, IMO. America has gotten to the point where "Freedom of Religion" means that society must be free from the Christian religion. It's not right.

Now, I believe in the right of association, and if the HMO wants to fire the physician for refusing to do the work, that would make me sad, but I wouldn't see it as a violation of the law.

[Hodar]

I have to agree with you on the way the HMO will likely be forced to handle this situation. However, I do question the Doctor in this. If she can have her religon dictate what and who she will serve; that means that all doctors may do likewise.

Hence, if you are not the proper 'class' citizen for your Doctor, you may be refused medical care.

There is only 1 circumstance in which I feel a Doctor has a definite right to refuse medical care; despite the hypocritical oath. If a patient is HIV positive, the doctor is being asked to risk his life (and the lives of his family) to perform surgury, or work with the patient. I think this circumstance should protect the Doctor to make the decision for himself.

[RS]

"Should a physician be able to refuse treatment because of his or her religious beliefs?"

How absurd... If whatever it was you are asked to do is legal - then you quit if you don't want to do it.
"Rights" simply don't enter into a legal work situation.

[pgyanke]

> "There is only 1 circumstance in which I feel a Doctor has a definite right to refuse medical care; despite the hypocritical oath. If a patient is HIV positive, the doctor is being asked to risk his life (and the lives of his family) to perform surgury, or work with the patient."

This would be why you are not in charge of the country.

You view physical harm as the worst thing that could happen to a person and obviously, this doctor believes the harm to her soul is much worse. She has a fundamental right of conscience to refuse to provide a service that is against her religious beliefs. We are not a chattel state where she should be FORCED to do that which against her own conscience. Her employer has the right to deny her employment if she will not perform her duties to their specification.

The patient has the right to seek another doctor or lobby the HMO to allow her an outside provider. The patient does not have the right to compel another American to perform ANY service.

If the doctor were denying life-saving care, an argument can be made that she can not be true to her HYPOCRATIC oath and must be made to perform the operation or cease being a doctor. However, in this instance, the procedure is elective and, frankly, should not constitute an emergency on her part.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If she can have her religon dictate what and who she will serve; that means that all doctors may do likewise.

This isn't a generality. There is a very specific situation here, and the situation is a lesbian who wants to be artificially inseminated, and a doctor who doesn't want to be involved.

Artificial insemination is an elective procedure. It is not a matter of life and death.

This doctor ain't the only doctor in the world. It is the HMO's responsibility to find another doctor who would be willing to perform the procedure.

Unless, of course, you want your doctors to be brain-dead, affirmative-actioned automatons who do whatever they are told by an HMO to collect their paychecks, irregardless of what their conscience says.

Someday the HMO might tell the good doctor to withhold treatment from YOU because it is too expensive.

Would you object to her listening to her conscience then?

[ClearCase_guy]

Well said.

[pgyanke]

> "'Rights' simply don't enter into a legal work situation.

Will you come work for me? You sound like the perfect candidate to reduce my labor costs and benefits. How does slave labor, tied to a post sound to you?

What an absurd statement...

[A. Pole]

Bottom line, unless the Doctor is in private practice, or the paycheck from her employer bounces; she should have to perform the proceedure, regardless of how she may feel about the patient.

Oh, yeah? So if the law tells her to kill unborn child she also should do it? What if the law asks her to put a retarded person or a member of undesirable race to sleep? Should she also do it? Why do you reduce the religion and morality to the matter of personal feelings?

You would make an excellent assistant to Dr. Mengele .

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Liberals are smart in taking little steps to eliminate what they want to eliminate. Making God, Jesus, the Bible, and Bible believing churches illegal in one shot would fail badly for them. So they make it illegal to believe certain parts of Christianity and the Jewish faith a little at a time. Pretty soon the whole faith is illegal.

The Bible clearly says time and time again that believers will be persecuted. Homosexuals/democRATs/liberals are persecuting Christians and Jews big time.

[Hodar]

This doctor ain't the only doctor in the world. It is the HMO's responsibility to find another doctor who would be willing to perform the procedure.

When the doctor accepted the job, the first question they should ask is "Can I do this job?". The doctor accepted employment, the doctor accepted a paycheck. Now the doctor is placing personal considerations on who and what medical care she will perform.

IF the roles were reversed, EXACTLY reversed; would you defend a Lesbian Dr who refused to artifically inseminate a straight woman, simply because of her sexual preference?

[Hodar]

If whatever it was you are asked to do is legal - then you quit if you don't want to do it.

Exactly.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

How absurd... If whatever it was you are asked to do is legal - then you quit if you don't want to do it. "Rights" simply don't enter into a legal work situation.

What a silly statement! So nobody is to fight within the system. They must all simply quit. That's a great way to fire all of the Christians and Jews! Just force the endorsement of homosexuality on all of them. If they don't endorse that particular sin they have to quit or be fired.

[Hodar]

Please pick a topic before you challenge.

It's hard to argue with someone who says:

That is why you are not in charge of the country.

Physical harm isn't as bad as spiritual harm

Patients have rights

Oxygen is good.

[Hodar]

Take some more of your medication, and think before you flame.

The topic is not abortion. Where did you get that idea? I don't recall mentioning that. The word isn't in the article. But, some voice in your head said it was, and I'm apparently Dr. Mengele's assistant.

Buffoon.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

IF the roles were reversed, EXACTLY reversed; would you defend a Lesbian Dr who refused to artifically inseminate a straight woman, simply because of her sexual preference?

Actually, I would.

Now answer my question, which you conveniently ignored.

Someday the HMO might tell the good doctor to withhold treatment from YOU because it is too expensive.

Would you object to her listening to her conscience then?

[Hodar]

Someday the HMO might tell the good doctor to withhold treatment from YOU because it is too expensive.

I believe in rules. My HMO states quite clearly that my coverage may not exceed $2 Million (lifetime). If my care should exceed that, and I don't have the money in my checking account. I will certainly accept that. And I would personally sue to prevent a doctor from overruling my wishes and pursuing her conscience; when the financial considerations would destroy my family's future.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I believe in rules. My HMO states quite clearly that my coverage may not exceed $2 Million (lifetime)

And if the amount was far below that, but the HMO figured what you don't know can't hurt them, then what?