Pediatrician Refuses to treat Lesbians' Child

[K_Z]

The thing is that she treated them prenataly yes? "Last September when the expectant mothers first met Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville. She was recommended by their midwife.

"We were really happy with her," Krista said. "The kind of care she offered, we liked her personality, she seemed pretty friendly. She seemed pretty straight up with us.""

She had treated them and took good care of them.
Maybe something else happened between them, Or maybe they made claims about how they wanted to raise the child that did not fit with her doctoring style. Anti vax, or whatever.
I think there could be more to this.

BBM. I don't think that's correct. She's a pediatrician, from the article, so I don't think she actually provided any treatment or care to the couple prenatally. (A pediatrician in a clinic can't bill for that, and it's outside the scope of a pediatrician to provide care to an adult couple or a pregnant woman.)

She simply met with them to visit and see if a doc/ patient/ family relationship would be established. A "meet and greet" is probably not going to be viewed as a "therapeutic relationship" at that point, and clearly the doc says she didn't keep any records of the visit. (There wouldn't be any need to establish any records yet-- the baby didn't exist yet as a patient, and insurance won't pay for a meet and greet visit. The parents may have chosen to go elsewhere, or moved, etc. And you can't start a record for a baby until it's born, and a person covered by insurance.)

I also wanted to add that doctors can withdraw from caring for a specific patient, for any reason (unless it's a crash and burn emergency and no one else qualified is available). They just have to let the patient know, and arrange a consult with a qualified new doc or provider who is willing to take over. In this case, the doc had not given any care "yet" to the newborn-- just that one meet and greet visit with the parents. So her obligation to "not abandon" was different than if the baby was already her patient.

 

[StephanieH]

They can't sue, because LGBT are not protected from discrimination in MI. Unimmunized children are completely different from this. If I were a doctor, I would have no problem with not accepting un-vaxxed kids into my practice. Pediatricians treat sick kids as well as healthy kids, so kids with leukemia or other diseases that suppress their immune systems, and lots of babies under a year old. Unvaxxed kids are a risk. This little girl is no risk to other children at all.

I get tired of "religious freedom" being tossed around. Worship whoever you want, but don't impose it on others. Not filling a prescription or denying your employees birth control based on your beliefs is wrong. I am an atheist, so why should I be affected in a negative way by what a Christian believes?

 

[Margo/Mom]

I don't agree with what the doctor did, but wasn't it ruled that pharmacists don't have to fill birth control prescriptions if it's against their religion? (IIRC, the caveat being that an alternative must be made available to provide service which is what it sounds like happened here.) This is what happens when our courts allow for discrimination against one segment of the population. It leaves the door open for anyone to be discriminated against as long as the offender can claim religious reasons.

There was a recent ruling--I think it was the bakery case--that looked at the distinction between opposing an action (say marriage) and opposing an action by a specific group of people (such as gay marriage). Now, where that case differs from this one is that it was in a state in which discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal. In Michigan apparently there is no such protection. And I think some legislators there have taken some pretty ugly stands in opposition to there ever being such legal protection. Were there such protections in Michigan, then there might be a case for this couple.

However, this doc is really just fooling herself. She very likely has no idea of the sexual orientation of the majority of her patients' parents. It just happens that this couple stood out because they ARE a couple.

 

[Margo/Mom]

It seems, from what I'm reading on this thread, that it is understandable for a doctor to refuse to treat an un-vaccinated child. Am I correct? It also seems that the United States had measles, and many other diseases we now see popping up, TB being one, under control. Seems to me these outbreaks may be the result of allowing un-screened. un-vaccinated immigrants into this country.

Maybe someone can enlighten me to the whys and wherefores of how this works in doctor think. Are doctors now becoming politicians, picking, choosing, and punishing those with whom they don't agree, or who don't dbey what the "medical establishment" says? Are they obliged to treat the illegal, un-vaccinated children? This thing is getting hairy, IMO. And now we have a doctor who can't build a bond/relationship with a certain kind of patient. Interesting.

What did the chicken say to the sick pig? "Hope they don't call a vet who just treats cows."

When my kids were small (before chicken pox vaccine), the pediatrician had a policy of NOT seeing chicken pox cases in the office, due to the extremely contagious nature of the disease. We received advice by phone (how to soothe the symptoms, possible danger signs that might require a trip to the ER, etc). And this made sense. it would seem that the same sort of thinking goes into the decision not to accept anti-vax kids into a practice. The present a public health risk, particularly to infants too young to be vaccinated or children with allergies that preclude vaccination or those with compromised immune systems. Further, when the decision not to vaccinate is based on a rejection of all medical evidence, on which the doctor, not the parents, is the expert, then what sort of working relationship is possible.

My dad was a doctor, and he was willing to work with patients who had religious objections to the acceptance of blood products, but I see that a bit differently from the majority of anti-vaxers who simply do not trust doctors or medical science.

 

[StephanieH]

When my kids were small (before chicken pox vaccine), the pediatrician had a policy of NOT seeing chicken pox cases in the office, due to the extremely contagious nature of the disease. We received advice by phone (how to soothe the symptoms, possible danger signs that might require a trip to the ER, etc). And this made sense. it would seem that the same sort of thinking goes into the decision not to accept anti-vax kids into a practice. The present a public health risk, particularly to infants too young to be vaccinated or children with allergies that preclude vaccination or those with compromised immune systems. Further, when the decision not to vaccinate is based on a rejection of all medical evidence, on which the doctor, not the parents, is the expert, then what sort of working relationship is possible.

My dad was a doctor, and he was willing to work with patients who had religious objections to the acceptance of blood products, but I see that a bit differently from the majority of anti-vaxers who simply do not trust doctors or medical science.

Rejection of blood products only hurts the patient, not others around them. I personally think it is silly, but it's not going to affect ME if someone else dies because they refused a blood product.
That is what I find objectionable about this doctor's stance. Her religious beliefs are affecting other people, in this case, an innocent baby. I don't believe people doing a public service (like a pharmacist, doctor, etc) should be able to use their personal beliefs to deny other people their rights. I don't care what others believe, as long as they don't force their beliefs on me. I have my own system of ethics that I learned growing up, and I only push my beliefs on others if I am doing good, like volunteering or donating.

Also, the whole thing about not filling a prescription for the morning after pill was ridiculous and ignorant. The morning-after pill will NOT work if the woman has already ovulated or conceived. So it is nothing even close to an abortion.

 

[Nova]

This seems crazy that the doctor would refuse to treat an innocent baby due to the relationship of the parents. I am a Christian and Jesus said we are not to judge others. What religion is this doctor that thinks judging and punishing an innocent baby is OK?

I agree with you, Jan, but it wasn't so many decades ago that illegitimate children were stigmatized because their parents didn't have a marriage license.

I recall a scene from one old movie about a real-life case of a female activist on behalf of orphans. (I'm sorry I can't recall the name of the film. I saw it when I was a kid.) The climax shows the activist speaking before Congress or the AMA and concluding with this line: "There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents." Even at the age of 7 or 8 I thought, "That makes sense."

Of course, nowadays I don't think the parents need to be condemned either.

 

[Nova]

I was raised in a very religious household and spent a lot of time reading the Bible. I don't remember a single instance of Jesus refusing care because of a patient's sexual orientation, or even sexual behavior.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I was raised in a very religious household and spent a lot of time reading the Bible. I don't remember a single instance of Jesus refusing care because of a patient's sexual orientation, or even sexual behavior.

That is truly the issue right there. Jesus went where he was needed most. He did not refuse anyone. He helped them all, good, bad, evil, ugly, All.

It is sad.

 

[Hiandmighty]

I think its stupid too but if the doctor honestly believes she wont be able to provide the baby with proper care because of the parents, then she was right to tell them so they could run the other way.

ETA: doctors don't have to see uninsured patients, medicare patients, tricare patients, etc. heck my dentist stopped taking Blue Cross. Not treating lesbians may be a grey area morally and ethically, but I doubt its illegal or anything they can sue for.

 

[Snick1946]

That is truly the issue right there. Jesus went where he was needed most. He did not refuse anyone. He helped them all, good, bad, evil, ugly, All.

It is sad.

It is. I have not been in church for years but I seem to recall the episode of the woman 'taken in adultery' who was hauled before Jesus by the Pharisees to ask what he thought should be one with her. He said nothing, but bent down and wrote in the sand for quite awhile and one by one the accusers all left. Jesus told the woman to go in peace, he was not judging her. I used to wonder what he wrote in the sand, maybe what he knew about all the escapades of those accusing her? There is nothing new in the last 2000 years in sexual behavior and if these things are so awful, why didn't He say more about them when he lived?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It is. I have not been in church for years but I seem to recall the episode of the woman 'taken in adultery' who was hauled before Jesus by the Pharisees to ask what he thought should be one with her. He said nothing, but bent down and wrote in the sand for quite awhile and one by one the accusers all left. Jesus told the woman to go in peace, he was not judging her. I used to wonder what he wrote in the sand, maybe what he knew about all the escapades of those accusing her? There is nothing new in the last 2000 years in sexual behavior and if these things are so awful, why didn't He say more about them when he lived?

Okay.. My opinion? Because it was not important. He laid out what was sin and yet made it clear that that was between us and God and we were not to judge those who don't know God.
Rahab was a prostitute and yet she was redeemed and then part of the blood line of Christ. I think that while we should live good lives, We need to be open to others and just love them. That is what it means to be a Christian. To Love people as God Loves us. To me it is really that simple.

 

[dr dona]

I have been a Pediatrician for 34 years and have cared for children in both lesbian and gay household--doesn't affect my ability to care for the child and the family unit...Seems to me this action is in direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath which we all promised to abide by on graduation from Medical school. IMHO I find this behavior disgusting !!!!!!

 

[stormshine]

The doctor argued she didn't want to treat the baby because she felt she couldn't havevthe kind of patient-doctor relationship with the parents she normally has. I wonder what the response would be if she refused because something else(not the sexual orientation of the parents) interfered with this relationship. What else could interfere? Lots of things. Would she refuse if a single military parent was going to deploy in six months and so the child would be staying with a relative who this doctor hadn't met. Would she refuse just because the baby only had one parent? Would she refuse if the parent was autistic and difficult to "have a normal relationship" with? It seems to me there are a thousand things that could make a doctor-parent relationship less than normal.

 

[gitana1]

BBM. What kind of doctor? Probably the same kind of doctor who refuses to treat un-vaccinated kids. They should all be reminded they are supposed to be healers, not judges of anyone's morality or beliefs.

Unvaccinated kids pose a dangerous risk to the health of the other patients so no, it is not the same thing as refusing to treat a child because of the sexual orientation of his or her parents. Totally different.

They can't sue, because LGBT are not protected from discrimination in MI. Unimmunized children are completely different from this. If I were a doctor, I would have no problem with not accepting un-vaxxed kids into my practice. Pediatricians treat sick kids as well as healthy kids, so kids with leukemia or other diseases that suppress their immune systems, and lots of babies under a year old. Unvaxxed kids are a risk. This little girl is no risk to other children at all.

I get tired of "religious freedom" being tossed around. Worship whoever you want, but don't impose it on others. Not filling a prescription or denying your employees birth control based on your beliefs is wrong. I am an atheist, so why should I be affected in a negative way by what a Christian believes?

I think its stupid too but if the doctor honestly believes she wont be able to provide the baby with proper care because of the parents, then she was right to tell them so they could run the other way.

ETA: doctors don't have to see uninsured patients, medicare patients, tricare patients, etc. heck my dentist stopped taking Blue Cross. Not treating lesbians may be a grey area morally and ethically, but I doubt its illegal or anything they can sue for.

Discriminating against a "protected class", due to their status as members of that class, i.e. the elderly, women, people with disabilities, Jews, black people, etc., is illegal per the 14th amendment to the constitution. And most states, including MI, have adopted state constitutions with the same language:

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
§ 2 Equal protection; discrimination.
Sec. 2. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the
enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion,
race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=6lWVxtwv-BNyQpPxkSQMRA&bvm=bv.86475890,d.eXY

Just because supplemental legislation or MI case law has not specifically stated that sexual orientation is among the protected classes, doesn't mean it is legal to discriminate against gay people in MI.

The 14th amendment equal protection clause does not specifically mention a list of protected classes. But over the years, people have sued and the Supreme Court has issued decisions in those case indicating, "Yup. That's a protected class. It is illegal to discriminate against them due to their status as members of that class." Various states have done the same thing at state level.

So although we have an activist attorney ringing alarm bells in MI about the lack of legislative protection of gay people in her state, which she is doing to drum up support for her proposed legislation, that does not mean that this couple lacks a cause of action against the doctor for discrimination. Suing for equal protection, suing due to discrimination, is precisely what has led to the list of the protected classes and it is precisely what leads to specific laws clarifying what is discrimination.

I hope these ladies sue. They can be the next Edith Windsor.

It is. I have not been in church for years but I seem to recall the episode of the woman 'taken in adultery' who was hauled before Jesus by the Pharisees to ask what he thought should be one with her. He said nothing, but bent down and wrote in the sand for quite awhile and one by one the accusers all left. Jesus told the woman to go in peace, he was not judging her. I used to wonder what he wrote in the sand, maybe what he knew about all the escapades of those accusing her? There is nothing new in the last 2000 years in sexual behavior and if these things are so awful, why didn't He say more about them when he lived?

In fact, he washed the feet of a prostitute. He accepted all. But this doctor, professing to follow Him, can't do even close to the same. Shame on her.

 

[MyBelle]

BBM. What kind of doctor? Probably the same kind of doctor who refuses to treat un-vaccinated kids. They should all be reminded they are supposed to be healers, not judges of anyone's morality or beliefs.

Totally different issue. Doctors are refusing to treat un-vaccinated children in order to protect their patients too young or too sick to be vaccinated. Waiting rooms are an infection-waiting-to-happen as it is.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I think its stupid too but if the doctor honestly believes she wont be able to provide the baby with proper care because of the parents, then she was right to tell them so they could run the other way.

ETA: doctors don't have to see uninsured patients, medicare patients, tricare patients, etc. heck my dentist stopped taking Blue Cross. Not treating lesbians may be a grey area morally and ethically, but I doubt its illegal or anything they can sue for.

BBM. If a doctor adjusts her quality of care based on the sexual orientation of the parent of her patient, she should lose her medical license. Licensing boards do require a standard of care be provided.

JMO

 

[K_Z]

BBM. If a doctor adjusts her quality of care based on the sexual orientation of the parent of her patient, she should lose her medical license. Licensing boards do require a standard of care be provided.

JMO

BBM. There was no "adjusting her quality of care." That's a red herring. The doc didn't adjust the quality of care" she provided. She declined to accept the family/ patient as a patient in a non-emergency situation, and provided another qualified provider for the visit.

We all may disagree with what she did, and how she did it, but it isn't a "quality of care" situation at all. It's declining to take them on as a new patient/ family, before the child was even born, and a person covered by insurance, which isn't mandated by any laws. That's not a "quality of care" situation, at all.

 

[Donjeta]

I think it is a potential quality of care issue as it has to do with lack of professionalism. Good doctors should be able to put aside their personal feelings and moral judgments and focus on what's the best for the patient. There's any number of things that she might find objectionable about any number of her patients' straight parents too. She got rid of these parents but who's to say she's not caring for any number of other babies whose parents's behavior she is disgusted with, and letting it interfere with her relationship with her patient. The babies grow up and might become rebellious kids, addicted kids, or Wiccan kids, or gay kids, or something, what about their care? If any of the parents of her current patients happen to be LGBT they are going to have a worse relationship with the doctor as well, even if the doctor doesn't know about their orientation. Some kids she treats now might be gay, they certainly won't trust their doctor if they hear about this.

That's nothing that a licencing board would get involved with, but I think the doctor should definitely work on herself a bit here as she admittedly has a problem here. (Although she may see it as religious righteousness, not a problem.)

 

[K_Z]

Donjeta, I agree to a limited extent. This isn't the same thing, for example, as a firefighter refusing to fight a fire at a gay couple's home, or a police officer refusing to answer a 911 call to a gay couple's home. This wasn't in any way an emergency situation.

The bigger question seems to be, are there "some" public servants that should be compelled to perform "no matter what" under all circumstances, versus a conscientious abstinence under controlled and non-emergency circumstances, with an alternate supplied? Basically, a law that says, "I choose YOU, and you MUST be my doctor, because I want or expect you to do so". IDK what the right answer is here in non-emergent situations. Does a Blue Cross family have the right to demand care from a non-Blue Cross accepting doc or clinic? Is it discrimination for a doc or clinic to "decline" or "refuse" Medicaid or medicare patients?

I'm very disappointed in this doctor, and how she went about choosing/ de-selecting this family for her practice. It was idiotic, IMO, to send that letter to that couple. But I'm equally stymied about the wisdom of how to "force" docs and clinics to "accept" all patients under all non-emergency circumstances, without mandating the kinds of conditions of social medicine. (Which even Obamacare doesn't mandate.)

We are not talking about something like a firefighter refusing to spray water on the burning home of a lesbian couple. This is not a Medicaid clinic refusing to care for a patient. This is more akin, IMO, to a private school declining an applicant for "whatever" reason. Yes, it's triage of some sort, whether a wallet/ insurance biopsy, or an assessment of some perception of lifestyle. But it's not like this family couldn't seek BETTER, more willing and attentive care, elsewhere. They had options. (Ducking for cover.)

 

[Donjeta]

Yeah, I totally agree that the lesbian couple and their baby are better off with somebody else. It's just that many of her other patients that she hasn't turned away might be better off with somebody else too, if she's got trouble disentangling her personal feelings and judgments from her professional role.

It's not something that the government can change unless the doctor herself works on it.